Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

There you go getting all thenthitive again!

Nice place you have here. I'd have put the Lazy-Boy on the other side, though.

Will respond after work. Betcha can't wait.
 

Now ER haven't I told you about playing with that poor white trash down the street and in your Sunday Best at that. Look how tatterd and torn you are. Where did all that dust, is that ash, on you come from? You look like you have been crawling under the house.

Heretic: One who chooses: chosing a course of action; as opposed to following one set by others: polar opposites heresy and orthodoxy: orthodoxy in fact is necessary to define heresy in religions terms.
Heresy involves thought-decision-action: Orthodoxy involves: acceptance-sevitude-following.

Pagan: one from the country outside the city.

ER I think you may actually qualify as a Pagan Heretic even.
 

Pagan = from the country = redneck.

Heretic == one who chooses, after researching = close to erudite.

I'll buy that. If I go to seminary in Denver, I'll change the name of this joint to Pagan Heretic.

Marshall, come on by anytime. :-)
 

Hey, thanks for the links and the support. I just realized that we don't have our Open and Affirming Statement posted on our blog. I'll have to get on that...

In the meantime,

Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.

AND

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

~Jesus
 

ER, my only real objection that can't be reconciled was that you appeared to me to deny the Diety of Christ. Now that I have been set straight on that point, I withdraw all the accusations I have made to you regarding apostacy and all implications that I consider you a heretic, although I never called you that, myself.

I still disagree with the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle as normal within a Bible believing church. I have never said Homosexuals should be turned away from the church. Quite the contrary, I believe homosexuals should absolutely be accepted into the church. The church should, by all means, encourage homosexuals to attend services so they can be brought to the Lord through the prayerful study of God's Word, and repent and be saved, in my opinion.

You and your commenters have long labored under the delusion that I hate gays and/or are homophobic, but nothing can be further from the truth. I hate no one. I have stated on many ocassions that I have never met a gay person that I didn't like personally.

I want them to come to a saving heart knowledge of Christ. I don't believe one can be homosexual and have a personal relationship with Christ. I do not believe that God approves of the homosexual lifestyle. Simple as that. I believe it is possible to hate the sin but love the sinner, because I can.

I know you don't agree, and that's OK. We can be disagree about doctrine and dogma, but as long as neither of us deny the divinity and diety of Christ, we are never divided.

I have come to terms with my own prejudices. I know I have them. I am continually trying to eliminate those that don't fit the Biblical model, if there are any.

If anyone believes they know the absolute truth in all things, they are effectively saying that they themselves are God.

I know two things for certain:

1. There is a God.

2. I'm not Him.

Peace.
 

drlobojo, your reference to "poor white trash" reveals a great deal about yourself. And it goes that much further towards confirmation that you are indeed, a cultural, pretentious elitist.

It must be hard to maintain your superiority over the rest of us mere mortals while comporting with us.
 

Msrk, Drlobojo IS PO' WHITE TRASH.

SO AM I.

More than you, you dadgum big-city Kansan turned D.C. suburbanite.

Sheeh.

As for this: "I don't believe one can be homosexual and have a personal relationship with Christ."

That's just silly. Whether or not BEING a homosexual is a sin, ALL who have a relationship with Christ ARE SINNERS.

You just don't even come close to making sense most of the time, dude.
 

"I don't believe one can be homosexual and have a personal relationship with Christ."

I'll pass that on to one of our gay deacons at church. Or perhaps the gay teacher/preacher who has spoken prophetically and wonderfully from God's Word from time to time at our church.

Here's the problem that I think some of us have with your position, Mark (and the position of many others): Let's assume you're correct and that "being gay" IS a sin.

Nonetheless, some of us who love God and the Bible and strive to take it seriously do NOT find that to be a supported position in the Bible. But we're assuming you're correct and we're wrong.

What you're saying, it appears, is that one can't be mistaken about a particular sin and be saved. Does that mean that you've reached a point where you're ALWAYS 100% correct on ALL sins? You're never wrong?

Or does that mean that, as a fallen human who DOES sometimes get things wrong, you're not a Christian either?

We're not talking about people who are willy nilly doing what they want and spit on the Bible. We're talking about brothers and sisters who love the Bible and take it very seriously. When we find a sin in our lives as described in the Bible, we repent of it and change our direction.

It seems to me that you're saying one can't be wrong and be saved. Is that really what you think?
 

Mark said:"drlobojo,.... that you are indeed, a cultural, pretentious elitist."

Hey, hello Mark, long time no see.
Actually Mark I am an Elitist. I have an elitely developed sense of irony far beyond that of the general population. I graduated number one in my graduate school class of 206 people back in the dark ages, Summa Cum Laude. On hearing that my old Ma who quit school in the 10th grade to take care of her 4 younger siblings as me, "Laude how'd you ever do that?"
Pretentious, lordy no. I am elite by my nature, no pretending there.

Damn ER, your letting them walk through the kitchen with muddy shoes now.

I've kind of wondered about the imperfection of a design that is flawed enough that it allows for some of a species to be non-productive and use the design of the maker in a fashion not originally intended. unless of course the maker did it for a reason? Maybe population pressures and resource scarcity favors behavior not conducive to reproduction. Who knows? I guess no one will unless they look at it with out preconceived answers that preclude looking.

Why for example are there people born without sexual organs,or with both sexual organs, or with partial variations everywhere in between. If the designer always gets it right how do you explain these? What about a designer that gets it right 98% of the time? Why is the other 2% wrong? Or is it?
 

It's called "INTELLIGENT Design," not "PERFECT Design..."
 

Dan said:>What you're saying, it appears, is that one can't be mistaken about a particular sin and be saved.

I believe people can be mistaken about what it means to be saved and therefore not be saved. We see that all the time - cults, salvation by works, focus on the externals instead of the internals, etc. Salvation is a matter of the heart, not works. Forget about all the externals and go to God's word without any agenda and ask God to show you the truth regarding whether homosexuality is a sin or not. Only He can change our hearts. This issue is a matter of the heart - not based on externals. No one here can change your heart or convince you otherwise.

Dan said:>We're not talking about people who are willy nilly doing what they want and spit on the Bible. We're talking about brothers and sisters who love the Bible and take it very seriously.

We see in scripture and in our own lives the reality of spiritual deception. This is not about good intentions. It's about whether something is true or not. we're all capable of being deceived, and the likelihood of us seeing the light ourselves once we are deceived is slim. So, others will come along and try to correct us for our own good. What is our reaction? If we are serious and love the Bible, we'll take what they say and test it against sripture and ask God to show us the truth. Of course, we don't always make the right choice and we choose to do it our own way. It gets harder to hear as our hearts become more hardened to the truth.
 

Roger said:

"I believe people can be mistaken about what it means to be saved and therefore not be saved."

Okay, but I'm talking about people who are NOT mistaken. They believe that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus. They've repented of their sins and asked Jesus to be the Lord of their lives.

Just as you have.

So, they (according to you) are mistaken about this sin. Just as you surely are mistaken about some sin.

Are they/you saved - despite their/your error?

"But," you will say, "others will come along and try to correct us for our own good. What is our reaction? If we are serious and love the Bible, we'll take what they say and test it against sripture and ask God to show us the truth."

And their reaction was to take what you said, test it against Scripture, ask God to show them the truth and they came away with a different conclusion than you did. NOT because they were hardening their hearts but in a good faith attempt to prayerfully read God's Word, they came to a different conclusion than you.

Just as you have come to a different conclusion than they did.

I ask again: Are they/you doomed because of their sincere mistake?
 

DT said: "It's called "INTELLIGENT Design," not "PERFECT Design..."

Now that opens up all sorts of posibilities does it not. Is a perfect designer not capable of perfect designs? Or Is the designer not perfect? Or Is the designer not using our criteria and all of the design are perfect but we can't see it or understand it. Then of course there are all sorts of negative things it might mean, but that not the spirit of these post, are they?
 

Dan,
Do you believe that people can sincerely believe a lie? Is spiritual deception a reality?

Contrast that with the fact that God isn't double-minded and won't have two different truths on this issue.

One of the two groups is wrong since there are two opposing views.

Dan said:>Okay, but I'm talking about people who are NOT mistaken.

That's a problem. We're all capable of being mistaken. To declare an attitude going in that you're "NOT mistaken" is not coming to God and His word with a teachable spirit.

Dan said:>I ask again: Are they/you doomed because of their sincere mistake?

That question is based on a premise or misunderstanding of salvation by works or merit - which isn't a reality for anyone.
 

I believe that anyone who believes that salvation rests on the accuracy of what one believes is missing the point of Grace.

Seriously. If you think that what you believe is what saves you, then I believe you're wrong.

Sincerity of belief means NOTHING.

Commitment to faith is the thing -- oh, AND "works." James surely wasn't kidding, and neither, surely, was Jesus.

Can open! False dichotomies everywhere!

Since "truth" is a word humans have concocted to apply to a human idea, it, by definition, is faulty, since both are human inventions and humans are faulty.

Is there just one truth? OK. I'll but it. Sure. Can any human, or group of humans, know it? No.

Hence, the concern that we "have two different truths on this issue" -- or any other, in light of the general message of the Gospel (Jesus saves; let Him), is baseless.

Oh, boy. Irenaeus is spinning in his grave. Let him!
 

The older I get, the more I read and study, the more I asm convicned that the ONLY thing any of us can agree on about Mr. Jesus Christ (nod to Mark there) is what Bill and Gloria Gaither so beautifully wrote:

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus
There's just something about that name
Master, Savior, Jesus
Like the fragrance after the rain
Jesus, Jesus, Jesus
Let all heaven and earth proclaim
Kings and kingdoms shall all pass away
But there's something about that name.
 

"Fundamentalism is a threat to Christianity not because of the fundamental beliefs themselves, but rather because of the judgment that so often accompanies those beliefs. For example, it is perfectly acceptable to believe Jesus was born of a virgin. It is not acceptable to think that a person who disagrees with you on the subject is going to hell. For all of its libraries and theological books, Christianity is at its heart a fairly simple religion. In fact, the teachings of Jesus can be summarized nicely in four words: Love everybody. Judge Nobody. To believe that another person is forever beyond the grace of God because of the way that person practices religion is the ultimate judgment. For that reason, modern fundamentalism is often a negative force within the Christian faith."

-- the late Dr. Gary Cox, author of "Think Again: A Response to Fundamentalism's Claim on Christianity."
 

Dan said:>I ask again: Are they/you doomed because of their sincere mistake?

Roger replied:> That question is based on a premise or misunderstanding of salvation by works or merit - which isn't a reality for anyone.

Roger, you're ignoring the question. I didn't say any of that stuff that you just twisted me to have said. I didn't say anything about salvation by works. YOU DID!

I just told you that Mr. X is
1. saved by Grace,
2. through faith in Jesus.
3. Mr. X has repented of his sins and
4. made Jesus the Lord of his life, and
5. Now he strives by God's grace to walk in Jesus' steps.

Is Mr. X saved?

That's the question, Roger. I've said nothing in the above about works-based faith. I've said nothing about them claiming not to be mistaken on the above steps.

Orthodox Christianity tells us, "yes, Mr. X is saved."

But your sort of Fundamentalism seems to say, "Yes, he's saved... BUT! Not if he has read the Bible and disagrees with me on THIS sin!"

In which case, we're all lost because we will not always be right.

Answer the question I'm asking Roger, not another question of your own choosing. We can't really have a conversation if you keep changing the text of what I've said.
 

ER said:>I believe that anyone who believes that salvation rests on the accuracy of what one believes is missing the point of Grace.

What if I believe that 'grace' is merited? (As the Mormons do.)
Salvation is a matter of the heart and not a matter of externals. So, this is definitely about what we believe. (John 6:47 "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life"). Our mind is the battlefield on which the spiritual war is fought. All cults and heresies stem from an incorrect idea of who God really is and what He wants from us. Jesus made an exclusive claim and it's along those lines we stand. We're not adding anything, just taking Jesus at His word.

ER said:>Sincerity of belief means NOTHING.

Correct. We worship in spirit AND TRUTH.

ER said:>Since "truth" is a word humans have concocted to apply to a human idea, it, by definition, is faulty, since both are human inventions and humans are faulty.

Who told you that? Do a search in the gospels for the word truth and you'll get over 100 hits. So the principle of truth is important and can't be deconstructed. What God says, thinks, and does is truth, is it not? Can there be two opposing natures within God where what He says, does, and thinks are obviously contradictory?
 

"What God says, thinks, and does is truth, is it not? Can there be two opposing natures within God where what He says, does, and thinks are obviously contradictory?"

But we're not God, Roger. You believe that, I know. And so, being "Not God," we don't have easy access to Perfect Knowledge. In fact, we don't have any sure access to perfect knowledge - not in these frail forms.

And I'm sure you agree with that, as well.

We ALL agree that God speaks and knows perfect truth. What ER and I are saying is that you and I ought to long for that perfect truth, but we have no definitive way of receiving it.

Or do you think that somehow you DO have access to perfect truth so that you will know everytime who's right and wrong?
 

Dan said:>Roger, you're ignoring the question.

Sorry for the confusion. You're question is similar to "How many sides does a circle have?" I don't know how to answer it.

Dan said:>I didn't say any of that stuff that you just twisted me to have said. I didn't say anything about salvation by works. YOU DID!

If you ask a question asking if someone is 'doomed' because of a sincere mistake, then that logically shows that you believe you can do something to lose your salvation or disqualify yourself from ever having it. That means at its core that your understanding of salvation is flawed and based on us instead of what Jesus did on the cross. I know you didn't say 'salavation by works' - but that's the apparent logic behind the question.

Dan said:>
I just told you that Mr. X is
1. saved by Grace,
2. through faith in Jesus.
3. Mr. X has repented of his sins and
4. made Jesus the Lord of his life, and
5. Now he strives by God's grace to walk in Jesus' steps.
Is Mr. X saved?

It depends on whether that person just went through those steps in a 'religious' or external way ... or if they engaged God with their heart. Salvation is a matter of the heart and not a matter of externals. Scripture says that by our fruits we'll be known. If folks go through those steps and then live life governed by self instead of the Holy Spirit, that speaks for itself.

>we will not always be right.

Correct. Do you believe it's possible to be spiritually deceived?
 

Yes. For instance, I believe you're deceived on the gay issue and on support for the Iraq Invasion. VERY deceived.

But I don't think that your self-deception on the matter is greater than God's Grace. Do you?

You said:

"If you ask a question asking if someone is 'doomed' because of a sincere mistake, then that logically shows that you believe you can do something to lose your salvation or disqualify yourself from ever having it."

Read this slowly:

1. I'm asking the question to see what YOU believe.

2. I've told you repeatedly that I DON'T believe that we're saved by anything but God's grace and our acceptance of that gift.

3. But your position seems to imply that YOU DO. This would surprise me and this is why I'm asking the question.

So, when I ask the question (Is Mr. X saved?) you said:

"It depends on whether that person just went through those steps in a 'religious' or external way ... or if they engaged God with their heart."

And I'm saying that Mr. X engaged God with their heart, believed in Jesus Christ, asked for forgiveness of sin and asked Jesus to be the Lord of their life.

Is Mr. X saved?
 

This is becoming a lumber yard.
The place is beginning to be full up with beams.

Is this still a blog about "homosexuality" and Christian salvation?
Is beleiving that God designed and created homosexuality as well as heterosexuality and everything in between a sin that is unredeemable?
Is that belief and my acting on it, classified as "works" that are not of God and I am showing that I am not really "saved" because I hold that position?
 

"incorrect idea of who God really is and what He wants from us"

ALL ideas of who God really is are INCORRECT because they are incomplete.

Ergo, discerning what God wants for us requires, well, discernment -- NOT a mere repeating of verses from the Bible, as if just repeating them makes them clear.

Thinking, in other words, not memorizing, and not accepting blindly.

Drlobojo, it's about all those things.

I love that, BTW. Any honest Christian blog should have Lumberyard in its name. :-)
 

Spong!? In the same field as Jesus!? You've got to be kidding! Didn't I object to this elsewhere?
 

"Pagan Heretic"? Cool. We could do a joint blog in the vein of "Spy vs Spy"
 

I said I believe that a homosexual cannot have a personal relationship with Christ.

I repeat: I believe.

You are free to believe what you want to believe, too.

Do you want to know why I believe that?

Homosexuals have made a God of their carnal desires for the same sex. God says, "Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me." When one puts their own carnal, sexual desires above God, they are creating another God.

I am not saying that I am not guilty of putting other things before God sometimes myself, even often, but I at least admit it.

You are all free to disagree, of course, but that is what I believe.

You know? I admitted I was wrong to judge you unfairly, based on my belief that you denied the Diety of Christ. When I found out I misjudged you, I withdrew the accusation, which I thought was pretty gracious on my part.

It seems that you have some difficulty being as gracious. Suddenly my shoes seem to be covered with dust. I think I'll shake them off now. Bye.
 

Way too late, or early in the morning for indepth comments, but I did want to address the comments of Driobojo regarding God's Creation, whether He created homosexuals, etc.

What you're referring to is a matter of the results of the Fall of Man. Before the Fall, everything was indeed perfect in the world. After the Fall, all went awry. Diseases, violence, mutations, etc. the perfect design is one man, one woman, and the heterosexual desire each would have for the other. A homosexual desire is an aberration, a deviation from that design, as a result of the Fall. It is, however, merely one example of the distortions in creation since the Fall. So the Designer is perfect, His design was perfect, it isn't now and hasn't been since the Fall of Man. Your welcome.
 

Mark said:

"God says, "Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me." When one puts their own carnal, sexual desires above God, they are creating another God."

So, you're celibate then, Mark? Well, good for you.

As for me, I'll continue to believe that sexuality is a gift from God and not only for "dirty, nasty people and their sick, sick needs!"

I'm joking, of course. I'm sure you agree with me on that.

The thing that I've noticed is that no one ever addresses the whole concept of "You must be perfectly right on every sin to be saved" issue. And rightly so.

We fallen people can hardly make a case that we need to be always able to be right on every sin to be saved because if that's the case, we're all doomed, since none of us is always right.

But if we admit that we aren't always right and needn't always be right to accept God's gift of salvation, then we can't continue to bash those who think that Sin X is enough to send you to hell. Or to condemn brothers and sisters in Christ - and their entire church congregations! - as heretics, fools and satanists.

So, it's best to just keep quiet and pretend that we're perfect - even while we admit that we're not, but still on SOME things we are... or something like that.
 

I figured The Fall would be injected here somewhere. I wonder ... If the creation atory is a metaphor, which I believe it is, then the entire concept of the Fall of Man rests on a story spun to try to explain a great idea. If another metaphor were used to explain that idea, would the Fall of Man be necesarry? Original Sin would go, too. What if, instead of the Fall of Man to a level less than perfect creation, humankind never got to the level of perfection in the first place, because of the detachment from God that comes with Free Will and, well, because humankind is the created and separate by definition from the perfect Creator. What if one looks at the state of sin as a state of incompletion, in other words, not as fallen state at all? Some do. Some look to Original Blessing as a starting point, not Original Sin. Matthew Fox's idea, which I admit I'm not that read up on.

Hey, Mark! You judtged me unfairly because of your own stubbornness and inability to read plain English, and because of your habiot of twisting people's words around to fit your own nefarious purposes. Coming clean about that is fine, but don't expect me to kiss your butt for it and pretend that everything is otay. Besides -- L and O and L and LOL -- this shows your insincerity: "which I thought was pretty gracious on my part." Well, think again.
 

MA said "His design was perfect, it isn't now and hasn't been since the Fall of Man. Your welcome."

Excellent position within your rationale. Within mine, it would mean that the designer was laid low by a metaphor and a contradictory metaphor at that.
 

Mark said:>I said I believe that a homosexual cannot have a personal relationship with Christ.

That statement is too broad and needs clarification. Sin grieves the Holy Spirit and can hinder our prayer life and fellowship with God. Is there any sin a child of God can commit that will cause Him to disown us and erase our names from the book of life? No, there is nothing in scripture to support that. After all, if our bad conduct somehow caused us to not be worthy of salvation, then that means our good conduct was what merited our salvation in the first place. That cannot be!

I do believe that scripture teaches that a child of God cannot habitually sin and continue without either repenting or God disciplining them. Not only is salvation a work of God, but so is sanctification. So, just as Jesus purged the Temple from the money changers, I believe He'll purge our bodies (called the Temple of the Holy Spirit in the NT) from sin as well. If someone can sin and do so without any regret or consequences, then doesn't that mean God is not at home in that person (ie - they're not His child, not born again) ?

Dan said:>And I'm saying that Mr. X engaged God with their heart, believed in Jesus Christ, asked for forgiveness of sin and asked Jesus to be the Lord of their life.

Can we see their heart? No. Over time can we observe what's in their heart by their words and actions? Yes. Remember that it's possible to sincerely believe a lie, or a sincere person to become spiritually deceived. Mormons use the same vocabulary as Christians, yet their definitions are different. So, if a Mormon answered your question correctly, that doesn't prove anything. This is not about mere words. It's about lifestyle - as that reflects more of what's in the heart.


Dan said:>then we can't continue to bash those who think that Sin X is enough to send you to hell.
>Or to condemn brothers and sisters in Christ - and their entire church congregations! - as heretics, fools and satanists.

Dan, I'm not bashing or condemning. I'm talking about error and what needs to be done to correct it. If what you and your church believes is wrong (will you admit there is a possibility), do you want to be corrected?
 

I am always open to correction. After all, I believed once as you do now about homosexuality and God worked on my heart to change my position.

I was VERY reluctant to change to being accepting of homosexuality because it differed from how I'd been raised and my cultural norms. And yet, I left my heart and mind open to God's leading and thus DID change my position.

And you? Are you prepared to change your position towards gay marriage if God worked similarly on your heart and mind? As you have phrased it here and elsewhere - God DID in fact work a change in my life and God is not two-minded about things. Is that proof positive that you're wrong?

No, no more than the fact that your gay-turned straight guy is proof positive that I'm wrong.

I will commend you for your statement:

"I do believe that scripture teaches that a child of God cannot habitually sin and continue without either repenting or God disciplining them."

This would be my point. For those who rebuke my church or my brothers and sisters - calling us non-Christians - because we disagree with you, that is beyond what I consider reasonable.

By all means, tell us we're wrong on this point if that is what you think God would have you do, but why make the leap from "wrong" merely because we sincerely disagree with you to "Not Christian."

And I'll say it again: If being wrong about a sin is all it takes to be condemned to hell, then we're all screwed.

Wouldn't that be a bit horrid if God made us fallible and not capable of always being right then condemned us for not always being right?
 

If I tell you that only 89,457 angels can dance on the point of a pin (needle actually). Am I damned as a non-believer?
For if any number of angels can dance on the point of a pin then they have a nature that is not any different than that of the world we live in.
Thus believing that there is a number that can dance there denies the spiritual nature of angels and by inference the very existance of God.

So such a question may now be a scornful and tedious concern with irrelevant details and an allusion to medieval religious controversies, but to Thomas Aquinas the answer was the difference between the heretic and the believer.

So we haven't change realy have we?
 

Dan,

You say it's a possibility you might be wrong - so remember, if your position is in error, all your beliefs about it being a progression into something better are wiped away - all the time you've spent promoting the cause is as Paul said about His previous 'better way' - it all amounted to nothing. Error is error. Are you willing to take that chance (to lose all that you've put into it) to openly and honestly look at the issue?

Dan said:>And you? Are you prepared to change your position towards gay marriage if God worked similarly on your heart and mind?

Yes. Given that we're fallible and subject to be deceived in the spiritual realm (no one ever 'arrives' where they are above it all), we have to take our experiences and test them against scripture and ask God to show us the truth of His word. I have meditated over this and asked for God's help to give me wisdom and I've looked at what you are saying and it conflicts with scripture. Here's what He has shown me (note: I'm not smart enough to come up with this on my own!): Scripture tells us to glorify God with our bodies (1 Corinthians 6:20) and God cannot get the glory from homosexual sex. If God is the Creator (and He creates with intent and purpose, not arbitrarily), then He creates us inside AND OUT. That obviously and biologically means that homosexuality is a deviation from the created order. Then there's the testimony of Dennis Jernigan. His testimony is what it is. God (or someone if you will) is delivering people from this lifestyle. Is God double-minded - delivering some and telling others that it's fine? What if the enemy is behind this deception of telling folks it's fine? Then it starts to add up and make sense. The enemy wouldn't deliver someone into a lifestlye that leads to Godly fruit as DJ's life shows. That would mean the enemy is working against himself and he wouldn't do that (see Mark 3:23-29). But it does make sense for him to lead some folks (some saved, and some not saved) into an unsound doctrine that works against God and His glory - and brings division (John 10:10).


Dan said:>For those who rebuke my church or my brothers and sisters - calling us non-Christians

Dan, I'm just stating what principle scripture reveals regarding sin and the child of God. We then take that spiritual truth and examine ourselves.

There is no way that 100% of any congregation of folks that believe they are Christians are truly saved. We see that all the time when congregations are polled and asked what they believe. Many give answers that show they believe membership = salvation, or good works saves, or have done all the right things externally but not engaged their heart, etc. Is it better to assume someone is saved (and not dig deeper to find out what's in their heart) and have them truly be lost? Or is it better to be real and honest and dig deep to make sure that folks aren't just smart, sincere, religious but lost (like the pharisees were). Remember that Judas Iscariot was such a trusted 'disciple' that he was in charge of their finances. How could that happen? Answer: he looked like the model Christian on the outside but his heart was not right with God. Salvation is a matter of the heart.

Does anyone who is spiritually deceived know they are deceived at the time? No. How often does that person believe it is God behind what in reality is deception? Often. That person has to be open to what God's word says is truth as their good intentions, their sincerity, and feelings (and even sometimes counsel from their friends or church family) will not set them free. Only the truth will set them free. So, it all goes back to God's word and their heart towards what God has told us there. Is God's word trustworthy and true and are we willing to accept it?
 

"Is God's word trustworthy and true and are we willing to accept it?"

No one is saying anything else, Roger. We are all willing to accept it but sometimes in our human form, you and I and the pope and Billy Graham are not going to come to the same conclusion. So obviously, there is a chance, a likelihood - a reality that sometimes I will be wrong. And you will even sometimes be wrong.

We'll seek God's will and pray for leadership AND YET we will sometimes be wrong. We must go on and strive to follow God's will by God's grace the best we can though, right?

I mean, would you have me abandon what I think God's will is (arrived at after much prayer and consideration) in favor of what YOU'RE telling me is God's Will? Or must I obey God rather than men (acknowledging that sometimes I will be wrong)?
 

Dan said:>
And you? Are you prepared to change your position towards gay marriage if God worked similarly on your heart and mind?

roger answered:>
Yes. Given that we're fallible and subject to be deceived in the spiritual realm (no one ever 'arrives' where they are above it all), we have to take our experiences and test them against scripture

Okay, then. Since you freely and rightly acknowledge that you CAN indeed be wrong about a sin (I think that was your answer), then let's take it a step further: If you die being mistaken about a sin, do you think you're hellbound?

Or, does it depend upon the sin?

Simple, straightforward questions that I'd honestly like to know your answer to.
 

I used to think there was a demon hehind every doily, as they used to say. No mas.

God's biggest opponent is not some devil. It's my self. And everyone else's.

If I were holding to the position I hold regarding homosexuality for my self, I could be accused of sin. But I'm not. I can't imagine being homosexual. I hold to my position in the name of Grace, for the sake of others. If I am wrong -- and of course I very well could be -- I'm wrong for others, not foe me!

I just no longer see much value in being convinced that I'm RIGHT about so much.

God is bigger than me. Grace is bigger than sin. Holiness overwhelms darkness, when given just the tiniest bit of an opening. These are real fundamentals.
 

I'm a bit tired and my knee is killing me. Bear with me if I meander too long.

I think this discussion has gotten way too vague and ambiguous. Indeed, the topic, having travelled from ELAshley's to here, was an exercise in ambiguity. So I wish to be very specific, especially considering my own part in using the term "heresy" and when one's beliefs no longer qualify one as Christian.

First, for the sake of clarity, I think I can speak for Mark (should he return), Roger, Eric and anyone else on our side of the issue, that our use of the term "homosexual" implies one who engages in homosexual behavior. We all understand that simply being homosexual alone, that is, having homosexual urges and desires, is not in and of itself, a sin. Otherwise, we're all in for it as we all are subject to sinful urges and temptations.

Of the differences of opinion over which we debate, this one particular point, homosexuality, is the one for which there is definite and unambiguous commands against. Of course I refer to the Levitical example, "Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou wouldst with a woman." It has been suggested that both versions of this mandate refer only to behavior that is not loving and monogomous, etc etc. The line goes that communities surrounding the Hebrew nation engaged in male prostitution, humiliating oppressive sex with subordinates and other such practices that are dissimilar from a marital type relationship. My rebuke is that there is nothing within the verse itself to suggest any such thing and that it is mere projection by supporters of homosexuality. It makes no sense that this particular behavior would not have such distinctions addressed.

Another argument has to do with the original language and how the translation is interpreted by which scholars. I've examined both sides of this argument and in my estimation, it's pretty clear that the pro-homo side's argument is weak. The explanation they use isn't consistent when applied to other similar uses in other areas of the Bible. One scholar who is one of my sources, Robert Gagnon, has been sumarily dismissed, but without explanation. I find his take to be logical and consistent throughout.

Another angle is that the OT writers were unfamiliar with the nuances of human sexuality, or that their writings are merely their interpretation of God's revelation. This is a problem since if their take on this issue isn't credible, how can any of it be credible. How can we tell the difference between what is an accurate representation of God's Will and what isn't? But the problem here is that the Bible says these commandments came directly from God through Moses who, as I understand it, were quite chummy. With that in mind, I find it extremely hard to believe there would be any mistake in the recording of these commandments that wouldn't have been immediately corrected by God through Moses. Also, it seems pretty arrogant to assume that anyone in the 20th and 21st centuries could uncover the true intent of this command more accurately than the people to whom it was originally given, as I've never seen anything to suggest that those ancient people understood it to mean anything more than "no homo sex, period".

Now, I could come up with more, but you get my point I'm sure. What it comes down to is that there is no other way to read this commandment anymore than there is for "Thou shalt not murder" or steal or lie or commit adultery. It is not a commandment of ritual, such as what to eat or how to cut one's hair. It is not a commandment of atonement such as stoning for adultery or a kid cussing his parents. It is a commandment concerning sinful behavior, such as the aforementioned murder, stealing, etc, a prohibited sin of the flesh like adultery, incest, bestiality, and it's as clear cut as any of 'em.

We are also taught from Scripture that God is, was and always will be, He's unchanging and it's not likely that what he found to be displeasing to Himself would at some point, either in Jesus' time or now, no longer displease Him. Thus, lying is sinful in the NT as it was in the OT. Such is the case with sins of the flesh.

But pro-homo forces have done a masterful job of attempting to change this dynamic. Liberal denominations like the Unitarians, the UCC and certain segments of the Anglican Church have likewise watered down Scriptural traditions so that all sorts of gray areas have been created where they never existed. They act as if modern knowledge of human sexuality has gloriously enlightened them to a higher understanding of God's Will as if somehow, back in the day, God never foresaw our advances in science and technology. Those of us who cling to traditional teaching are now hayseeds and backward yokels mired in superstition. Sounds pretty f'ing arrogant to me.

But the fact is that God hasn't changed and neither has human nature. We just have better toys, but we're the same sinful scumbags we've always been, subject to all the same temptations and His Word in Scripture is our only true guide as to how a good Christian should behave. It ain't just about not hittin' folks and stealin' their stuff.

So one can pray and meditate all one wants and if one believes revelation has come, one needs to put it against Scripture to validate it's origin. Because the Evil One deals in the warm and fuzzy. He ain't called the Great Deceiver for nothin'.

Therefor, to continue to believe that Scripture doesn't condemn homo sex in all of it's forms, even if within a "loving, committted, monogomous" relationship, is clearly a heretical belief, just as if your meditations convinced you it's no longer sinful to murder someone for the eight bucks in his pocket.

Forgive my longwindedness. It was used as an excuse to ban me from Levellers. But to do it in bits and pieces wouldn't have worked.

Wow. I just saw how long this really is. Sorry.
 

And yet, we disagree with you in all your wisdom, Marshall.

So, moving beyond that debate and giving you the benefit of assuming you're correct, let me ask my question of you that always goes unanswered:

Are you suggesting that to be mistaken about a sin is enough to condemn a Christian to hell?
 

"Are you suggesting that to be mistaken about a sin is enough to condemn a Christian to hell?"

I ditto Dan.

?????????

And by the by, Leviticus is a Loving God's Pandora's box. Read all of it carefully before opening it for aurguments sake, lest you be found their yourself.
 

Marshall, I think that is an excellent and not inappropriately long summation. I disagree with your entire azpproach to Scripture, what it is and how it is to be used today, so obviously I disagree with you on this and probably many other particulars.

And, I'll accept the label of heretic, understanding that to be a designation for someone who diverges from the herd, splashes out from the mainstream, runs from the broad way under the distributive bell to a narrow way in one of the tails.

Jesus was a heretical Jew. Luther and Zwingli heretical Christians. Spong, too. Each was condemned for widening the way to Grace.

That's what I mean when I say I'm in good company being called a heretic.
 

I confess that after reading all of these entries I went back to Leviticus to check out the relative punishment for a man lying with another man. It was just plain old death. But adultry , well that required stoning, which is a slow and horrible ritual death. I would also note that a woman lying with a woman carried no penalty what-so-ever.
But be that what it may, I wandered off into some of the other Laws and re-aquainted myself with some of my favorites. Allow me to share three of them briefly:

Under the dietary laws we have this about insects. "All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you." I guess that either insects have changed since Leviticus was written or maybe bugs were so forbidden that the writter of Leviticus couldn't get close enough to count their legs. Either way, now, the Law would have to be moot, in that it would not apply to those walking about on six legs.

"Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD"

As I pass on in years I grow fonder and fonder of this Law. but I couldn't discern what punishment there was for breaking it.

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

I know that ER has that Confederate bent, and I do tease him without mercy about it, but I just wanted him to know, that God didn't have a Law against slavery, but did have a Law regulating it. So maybe, just maybe, he was on the South's side after all. (But wait, why then did they lose? ;)
 

Much Chianti at my goddaughter's graduation party, but here goes:

Mr. Bojo,

As one should surmise by my earlier ramblings, I've studied both sides of the issue. That would require a thorough reading of Leviticus. Though I'm far from a scholar on the book, I've seen enough to know my comments on the verse in question are unassailable, that is, by using only facts. It seems you read it, however, for the purpose of mockery. Shame on you if that is true.

ER,

Being called a heretic and being a heretic are two different things. Jesus was called a heretic by hypocritical Pharisees, but how could He possibly be a heretic when He has the ultimate knowledge of the Law and it's proper application? Luther was called a heretic by those with a different take on Biblical teaching and on Church polity, yet he clearly wasn't a heretic either. Spong IS a heretic because he wishes to pare down the Good Book to comic book size, eliminating all that HE feels isn't "Godlike". I don't know who the hell this Zwingli character is but with a name like that there can be no doubt...*snicker*. But as to the first three, only one is truly condemned and that would be for assuming he knows more than God.

But unlike the two above, you and Dan have bought into a true heresy, whereby your churches and/or other influences, have helped to convince that an evil is good. Neither Jesus nor Luther changed any laws, they did not contradict what God's teaching was. To say the Levitcal verse in question does not include all homosex behavior is not supported by the verse itself, only by questionable info put forth by supporters of the homo agenda. So, to say "thou shalt not..." and then add exceptions, is a heresy. For the same can be done to any commandment, and often is, just without all the misleading psuedo-scientifc double-talk used with homosex.
 

I picture Dan jumping up and down in exasperation and impatience repeatedly asking:

"Are you suggesting that to be mistaken about a sin is enough to condemn a Christian to hell?"

but I wanted to focus on this separately. It's the type of question that probably deserves it's own post. Plus, I needed the Chianti to wear off a bit more.

First, I would not imagine that I would know when a given individual will be condemned to hell or for what. But in positing an opinion, all I can say is that it must be possible if there is a just God. Much of the shock so many people feel at the thought of a heinous criminal being saved and spared God's wrath, or the thought of a seemingly saintly person being condemned, is largely due to the natural desire to apply human characteristics to the nature of God. But God is NOT human and we cannot know all there is to know about Him. Many people don't understand what problem God would have with fornication, for example, and between two consenting adults who are obtaining such wonderful pleasure, it doesn't make sense.

For whatever reason, people we think are good dudes, have changed the rules and still insist they are right with God. Some of the broken rules are obvious to the Christian who makes a point to study Scripture. Others not so. Some change the rules without realizing, some for truly selfish reasons, and others, like yourself and ER, because you truly believe what you believe from prayer, meditation, and the influence of other sources beyond Scripture. Yours would be the sincere group of which you are most concerned with this question.

Still, I would say it's possible. None are perfect and all fall short, but are saved through accepting Christ. We manifest our acceptance by living as He taught us to live. He taught us to love God with all our hearts, souls and minds, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. He taught us to obey God's commandments. To backslide or lack perfect adherance won't condemn us because of our acceptance of Him, but to continually engage in sinful behavior believing we aren't sinning?

There's a lot more than just the individual. By believing as he does, the individual also influences others (or can, anyway) and then would be bringing others to sin. Without anyone to correct the false belief, I'd have to say that it is less likely that engaging in the sin alone condemns him. Even with others trying to correct him, he may still cling to his belief, but it might also hurt his chances. I would think that if he never stops to review his beliefs in light of the attempts at correction, there's an issue of pride to consider now, when it wouldn't hurt him to study more for God's sake. That could be a problem.

For my part, I read "thou shalt not..." without any reservations or preconceived notions. I read to know, to learn, to make sure I knew what the Book said. "Thou shalt not..." could not be more cut and dried, more specific. Even allowing for the possibility that I might not be up to snuff on all there is to know regarding any supposed background info, or that I even understand all the arguments I've already heard (that is, regarding the homosex issue that started this whole thing), I must default to the verse itself as it is written, which says, "Thou shalt not..." I must always default to God and pray He is pleased with my decision.

Overall, I feel there are very few and hard to find gray areas in the Bible. I feel this way because I dismiss my own desires when I study it. In doing so, I find anything regarding behavior to be pretty clear cut and easy to understand.

So I know my response may seem a lot of words without a bottomline answer, but it's because of the question. But it's mostly to be able to answer it this way: yes and no, depending on the sin, what the intention was behind the belief, and the amount of harm caused to the spirit or person of the individual or anyone affected by the belief.

As a last note, I just recalled something I was going to use in my explanation that is relevant. Despite your feelings about violence, of those who have killed abortion doctors, they hold the belief that they are doing good and protecting innocent lives. What do you think is going to happen to them? If they are sincere, I think it's possible that God would welcome them, considering their intent. (The one guy that is usually brought up, and for the purpose of proving someone kills in the name of God, is an atheist. I don't recall his name, but know it when I hear it.) If they are sincere, how can it be different than for the guy who sincerely believes his monogomous homo relationship is OK?

Again, I apologize for the length.
 

What I don't understand is how rational people of faith, once having learned even some of the mechanics of how the writings we call "the Bible" came about can still look at "it" and take the writings to have been written to THEM, for application in daily life now. To say "the Bible says" ANYTHING, without first considering the original author, as much as is known, the original readers or recipients, and the original context, is almost meaningless -- unless one accepts the superstition that the writings are "The Word of God," that God personally directed the Renaissance scholars who all buit rescued and, well, even that James VI and his scribes were puppets on God's string around and up to 1611.

So, to say the Bible is clear on anything, without such context, means what? Not much. Especially when those most likely to be literalists about some things, like homosexuality, are so not literal about other things, like eating bugs and shrimp.

By the way, "the Bible says" "Thou shalt not kill," not "Thou shalt not murder," in the king's English as well, some scholars say, in the original.

And "the Bible says" not to covet your neighbor's wife -- because she was his property and could be coveted. The idea of coveting a neighbor's husband being "extrabiblical" means it's OK, I guess.
 

Mockery, no. Irony, yes. ER's point about origins and uses is right on. If you want to know where to set up your tent when you travel with Moses, Leviticus is a useful book. If you want to know what burnt sacrifice to do when you break a specific Covenant, Leviticus is your guide. But do remember unless you are among the chosen people of Israel none of this applies to you. Yes, you can be, as a Gentile, a "Righteous Man" if you follow Hebrew Law, but you can never be under the Covenant of Israel. Even when Jesus said he did not come to change the Law, he was talking directly to Jews, not Gentiles. Gentiles were not under the Law.
 

Your understanding puts the whole of the Christian faith into the toilet. It means absolutely nothing to anyone by your standards. There is no way in which Christ opened things up in the manner that you suggest, and if I'm not getting your drift, it's because you dance around what that might be. You've infused so much ambiguity into what it means to be a Christian, how a Christian should behave, that anything goes. At the same time, with your protestations that what the writers wrote and what was preached at the time was for the people of the time only, really flies in the face of your God Is Still Speaking mumbo-jumbo, doesn't it? If God is still speaking to us, just what is He saying? How can you validate it? Against what do you measure the credibility of it? Because you think it feels right? That's preposterous! It's childish and immature to suggest that you don't need the Biblical foundations of our faith. How arrogant!

So answer this question: Just how has human nature changed so much that God's Law no longer applies?

or this: Where do you get the idea that Jesus obsolved us of having to consider God's Law as it pertains to how a Christian should behave?

If He didn't, how do you get from what I've said to what you're saying?

And for someone who claims to have such a tight handle on things, I can't believe you can't understand how we'd have to still comply with behavioral commandments and not the ritual and atonement commandments of Leviticus. That this elementary distinction is lost on you just baffles me. And BTW, my research has stated that the original language refers to murder, not killing. Another distinction that is basic.
 

Oh, and another point of clarification. As you certainly should, if not must, know, all things were done with the male in mind as in terms like "MANkind" as opposed to the PC "HUMANkind". Thus, if it was said that a "man" should not take another "man's" stuff, obviously, it goes without saying that the same goes for a woman or a child. So it is unnecessary to also say, "Thou shalt not sleep with a woman as thou wouldst a man" or the like. It certainly was crystal clear to the backward ancient tribes of Israel. Why not you?
 

Are you hung over from the Chianti, or what? Too angry for me to respect enough to respond.

Really.
 

But that last thing, about man being equivalent to woman and child at the time of Moses, is just horsepuckey. Women and children were property. By asserting otherwise, you're bringing your own biases into it, aintcha? Yet you claim to let the Bible speak for itself. Hardly.

Anyway, calm down. Take a powder.
 

You even read what you want, or need, into MY words. I never said the writings were for those people and times ONLY, ya dodo. I said that without taking the origins and context into consideration FIRST, no real meaning is possible from the words today.

And you're right. That flies right in the face of fundamentalism. And it flies right in the face of much, if not most, of Christianity from the Renaissance until the late 1870s. That's hardly "the whole of Christian faith."
 

Here's some more mumbo-jumbo:

"God's Comma."

http://www.stillspeaking.com/
spirit/words9.htm


BTW, I finally quit the Southern Baptist Convention when it went so very hard right. Why do you stick with the UCC when it's headed so far left? Just asking! Because the fact is the UCC is more accepting of conservative views than the Southern Baptist Convention is of liberal views.
 

And one more thing, while you're on such a tear: You, sir, are the arrogant one, for daring to close God's mouth, for daring to pretend to understand exactly what God desires, and for so venerating the Bible itself, and even "Christianity" -- as YOU see it -- over the Mystery of God and the Grace of Jesus.

I DON'T KNOW A LOT, and I don't claim to, faithwise-Godwise-mysterywise. If you call that arrogant, you're just not very bright, actually.
 

I meant late 1800s, not late 1870s.

And for a newish book that nails just about all Christian traditions but Catholic for changing the wording of the commandment in mid-20th century translations (Catholic Bible was not changed), see:

Wilma Ann Bailey, "You Shall Not Kill or You Shall Not Murder?: The Assault on a Biblical Text" by Liturgical Press, 2005.
 

"I can't believe you can't understand how we'd have to still comply with behavioral commandments and not the ritual and atonement commandments of Leviticus. That this elementary distinction is lost on you just baffles me."

Ah, the Bible contains a set of Law to be parsed, by whom, the Rabbis?
Just exactly how do you "know" which items to keep and which to ignore? What "authority" are you using to make such a distinction?

And indeed, women just weren't that important, they were mere chattel, when all this was written down, no need to mention them at all except when they interfered with men. When the old testament says "man" it means man not mankind, and certainly not "Women".
Even my female Old Testament teacher at the Baptist College I went to eons ago made that point in class much to the moaning and groaning of the pre-womans liberation females in the room.
 

"Female Old Testament teacher" must be some kind of triple, or quadruple, oxymoron to pure-dee fundamentalists!

I think he's just hungover freom the Chianti, myself. The lightweight.

Hee hoo. :-)
 

I can't remember her name, the OT teacher, but she was a terror. I read the entire Old Testament twice in one semester. Once because we were quized on the book(s) we were to have read each week, and again during the last two weeks of the semester to answer the three hundred question (open ended questions, that were different every year)test that was given 50 questions each day for six days in the order that the books were in the OT. I made a "C" and was damn proud of it. That was the class that I learned about the atabash codes, the poetic structure of the verses, the parallel constructs of the thoughts, the sourcing of some of Solomon's work to older Egyptian texts, that there were different versions of the Old Testament, that there were lost books of the Bible that were known to have existed but didn't then,and this old gal who taught all that was damn near an inerrantist herself even thugh she taught you the contradictions that were there. Brilliant woman far and away past me at that time, and I can't remember her name.
 

Marshall said:
“For whatever reason, people we think are good dudes, have changed the rules and still insist they are right with God.”

To be clear, no one has “changed the rules.” We’re talking about folk who’ve read the Bible and come to a different conclusion than you. It’s not that we’re looking at what the Bible says, thinking it means X and then are saying, “We don’t like X. Therefore, the rule is NOT X.”

Thou shalt not bear false witness, you understand that one, right?

Marshall said:

“I must default to the verse itself as it is written, which says, "Thou shalt not..." I must always default to God and pray He is pleased with my decision.”

Well, if you're going to default to the verse in question, it says, “Men shall not lie with men. If they do, you must kill them.” THAT is what God appears to say there, taken at face value. Do you default to God with the whole verse or do you set aside the second half of the verse and pray that God is pleased with you deliberately shirking the second half of what God said.

And drlobo was right on in his response to your suggestion about what's "clearly" ritual laws that we can easily ignore.

I'm sure that's what you'll say here - The first part of the Leviticus verse MUST be taken seriously because it's an Eternal Rule (TM), but the second part is a Ritual Rule, and can gladly be ignored.

We're not buying it.

Marshall said:

“But it's mostly to be able to answer it this way: yes and no, depending on the sin”

Well do us a favor and provide a list of sins that we must agree with you on in order not to be condemned to hell, then?

And since you’re allowing that it’s possible to be condemned to hell for being sincerely wrong, then if you’re wrong about the Iraq Invasion, your position on gay marriage or your failure to kill gays, do you suspect that you may be hell-bound?
 

Rowena Strickland. That was her name.
 

Hey, Dan, don't push these guys to totally comply with all the ritual injunctions. Dang, who knows what might come of it!
 

My goodness, lads! And you think I need to calm down? I wasn't hung over, I was a wee bit tipsy. I need lots of drink with lots of sugar before I get hangovers. (Bad mixture. Don't do it.)

I recall a story in Acts wherein Peter dreamt of a large sheet filled with all sorts of animals and a voice telling him to eat. He refused due to the animals being on the list of restricted foods. Long story short,

"The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'

Regarding atonement changes, stoning, ritual bathing, animal sacrifices etc, were actions necessary to atone for sin. Christ's crucifixion rendered all these unecessary since none of those were as perfect a sacrifice as Christ Himself. God required blood for the atonement of sin since the wages of sin is death. Christ's death was the ultimate sacrifice for the atonement of all of our sins should we believe in Him.

These are how I can distinguish between which OT Laws apply or not. Of course your way is much easier. I can pretty much do whatever the hell I want because I believe in Christ and now all is well.

ER,

I may begin responding to your comments, but I sometimes also touch on something others on your side might have said. In this case, Driobojo made the comment about OT Law only applying to OT people. Yet, you did imply such in your post of 9:14AM. And once again, I was not in the least bit angry in my response. Incredulous perhaps, but not angry. I don't get angry in any blog debate. Don't see the point in getting angry.

Anyway, I never said man and women were equal in the OT. I said that if a law was put to a man, it's only natural to assume the women were also oblidged to comply. As women were "chattel" or "property", how could they possibly be exempt from behavioral restrictions? But perhaps I need to articulate more clearly my thoughts. My bad.

As to "thou shalt not kill/murder", your scholars say one thing, mine say another. A wash. (Except that yours are wrong.)

Next, I did not in any way close God's mouth. I've stated before that I agree that God is still speaking, only that He's saying the same thing He's always said. But you, with your statements regarding the OT Laws seem to have done exactly that, except for revelations to you and Dan from your meditations and prayers. Frankly, and I don't care who it is, one's belief in personal revelation over Scripture seems arrogant but it is really the least reliable source.
 

Dan,

Actually, some have indeed changed the rules if they believe there's any version of homosex behavior that ISN'T prohibited. I've already explained and justified my position regarding OT punishments for sins described in the OT. Funny, but no one's deigned to illustrate how those sins came to be sins no longer. There's no Scriptural explanation as far as I can see. Help me out here. Where is it? But the Book says "thou shalt not" and you and yours say, "except if you do it THIS way". As I said, YOU say that, the Book doesn't. I'll stick with the Book, thank you very much.

"Well do us a favor and provide a list of sins that we must agree with you on in order not to be condemned to hell, then?"

First of all, you should use the whole statement and the question is partially answered. You then should reread what I wrote and you'll find that I wouldn't begin to imagine exactly when God might allow any backsliding and how much. Next, it isn't which sin, it's the idea of chronic engaging in a given sin. Pick one. But you didn't answer my question about people who think it's God's will to kill abortion doctors. My implication, and again, I may not have articulated my thoughts plainly enough for you, is that it's always up to God. Judgement is His domain. Debate over whether a self-serving interpretation of Scripture is damning isn't a call for forced acceptance of what I believe, it's encouragement to reassess for yourselves what God wants you to believe about Him and how He wants us to behave as people who claim to believe in Him.
 

Driobojo, (What the hell does that mean, anyway?)

"Hey, Dan, don't push these guys to totally comply with all the ritual injunctions. Dang, who knows what might come of it!"

Do you have a complete stand-up act, or do you just THINK you're funny?
 

I thought it was funny.

As to this:

"I've stated before that I agree that God is still speaking, only that He's saying the same thing He's always said."

Yes - God's always said that we should not eat pork...oh, wait. You just showed us an example of how God changed that rule.

Well, God has ALWAYS said we should take an eye for an eye and a... oh wait - Jesus clarified that for us saying, NOT an eye for an eye, but rather turn the other cheek.

But you're right. God is saying what God has always said... OR clarifying what God has said because we didn't get it right or whatever reason God had for changing the original rules.

Marshall said:

"it isn't which sin, it's the idea of chronic engaging in a given sin. Pick one."

Okay. I pick killing one's enemy when we've been told specifically, "thou shalt love your enemy." Do you fear for your salvation, Marshall, because you might be wrong on that point?
 

"I'll stick with the Book, thank you very much."

Okay, the Book says to free prisoners every seven years.

The Book says to sell your belongings and give to the poor.

The Book says to return property to its original owners every 50 years.

The Book says Love your enemy, do good to those who persecute you.

The Book says don't charge interest.

The Book says not to call your brother/sister a fool.

The Book commands us NOT to trust in a military but in God.

And I won't even go in to all the stuff that you don't think we need to take seriously because it applies somehow only to OT Jews...or maybe not even them?

Are you doing each of these OR do you choose to interpret those in some way other than what they obviously seem to say?
 

Marshall points out: "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
Was what he "made clean" only that in the sheet? Or is everything God make clean now? I mean the dream was after the fall of man and orginal sin. So does Jesus's sacrificial three days in hell make it all clean?
I am a little skeptical of Paul anyway, but even more cautious with his "dreams".

Also---"As women were "chattel" or "property", how could they possibly be exempt from behavioral restrictions?"

Do you hold your cat, or dog, or ox, or car to the same moral and legal standards as you do yourself? Women were "nothing" unless they were part of a man.
Nothing-nada-nunca-nyet-zero they just weren't considered. They were counted as "property" to be taken, used, disposed of, even killed with a minimum of problem. Those were the good old days you might say.

No I don't do "stand up", my knees hurt when I do. So I restrict myself to "sit down" most of the time.
 

It amazes me how something called The Way -- a way of living for others and dying to self, to put it real plainly -- which is the nut of what Jesus's example seems to be, devolved so fast into a set of beliefs to which one must adhere to be saved!

I hereby update my lifelong assertion that Constantine's supposed conversion was the worst thing to happen to The Way.

Strike that. The church councils that followed did more damage. So, yeah, give me some time and I might very well throw out dang near the entirety of Christian history. Because that's one thing. Jesus's message, as difficult as it might be to tease it out of the Gospel writers' own interpretations, biases, intended audiences and goals and aspirations, does boil down to:

Love God. Love neighbor as yourself. Be born from above -- and I'll dare to say "be born from without" to deal with the limits of first-century cosmology -- and die to self.
 

Peter's dream, not Paul's.

Peter was struggling with exactly how gentiles could become Christians without becoming Jews first. I think. For him to be given such a vision is more remarkable that it seems today. It'd be as if James Dobson up and had a vision and heard a voice telling him to welcome homosexuals fully into the pews and the pulpits.

BTW, Marcus Borg is helping me see Paul in a better light in his "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally" (San Francisco; Harper, 2001).
 

Dan said:>I mean, would you have me abandon what I think God's will is (arrived at after much prayer and consideration) in favor of what YOU'RE telling me is God's Will?

Dan,

Yes, by all means - for your own good. You certainly don't want to invest your life in a lie (no matter how attractive it is - a subtle lie is just as much a lie as an obvious one).

Are you open to believing that your doctrine is not from God? In other words, what would it take for you to believe that it is not from God? Is there anything?

To clarify, I'm not telling you to take me at my word. I'm asking you to test what I'm saying against God's word. That's a big difference, correct? We're seeking His will on this, not yours or mine.

We're all guilty of siding with our 'self' way too much. Check this out:

"Again God spoke to me, this time through Matt. 16:24: 'If any man will come after me [be my disciple], let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.' I had never understood that passage. Many times I had asked what God meant by denying self. I knew He did not mean to deny my existence, for even if I said, 'I am not here,' I still was.

Now the meaning of this scripture was clear to me: self should have no place whatever. Now I understood that self was to die. But I didn't know how to die! In my desperation I cried again, 'Teach me to die!'

God's instructions were that every time there was an uprising of self I was to go to Him directly, immediately and without making any excuse whatever. I was to confess it to Him. I saw that I had been excusing myself for these traits and actions." - R. Mabel Francis, from "Filled with the Spirit...Then What?"
 

"To clarify, I'm not telling you to take me at my word. I'm asking you to test what I'm saying against God's word. That's a big difference, correct?"

Yes. And as I've already repeatedly stated, when I was listening to the "teachings of men," I agreed with you. It wasn't until I prayed, read, tested God's word that I came away with a different point of view.

So which is it? Shall I listen to you or to what I learned when I prayed and tested God's Word?
 

Dan, (from 8:38AM)

God said the tribes of Israel should not eat pork. It was unclean. Then he made it clean. Pay attention.

Jesus clarified for the sake of the Jews who were so anal about the Law by that time that they had missed the point of the Law. You recall, of course, that David had taken of the priests' food for the sake of his starving compadres. He broke the Law, but his intentions were good. Obviously, he wasn't anal about the Law and God had no problem with him breaking it. I'd say another point here is that David's act wasn't selfish as he had the welfare of his people in mind.

"Okay. I pick killing one's enemy when we've been told specifically, "thou shalt love your enemy." Do you fear for your salvation, Marshall, because you might be wrong on that point?"

But I wouldn't be wrong. I'd kill my enemy only to prevent him killing me or other people. That's the point of our going to war. To do good, not to conquer for the sake of conquering. We save people's lives by killing those who are doing the real oppressing, not the liberal's notion of oppressor. So killing a bad guy to save an innocent guy is a good thing, assuming there's no other alternative. If you believe that turning the other cheek means to allow someone to murder you, by all means, enjoy. But if I'm there, I'll take the punk out if I have to and be more than happy to take my chances with the Lord.

On to your list,

Do you mean psychopathic prisoners who will kill, maim and rape upon release, or prisoners of war?

You own nothing?

I don't think I've borrowed anything for that long. I was only 2 yrs old fifty years ago. Everything else I owned I was sold by someone who made it for the purpose of selling it to people like me.

I do, but I won't let them kill me or others, nor will I allow them to persecute others.

The Book says "I" shouldn't charge interest. I don't think you can make the case that that refers to a business, the purpose of which is to lend money. Interest is how such businesses earn their income.

I must cop to this, but really, fools don't need to be called such. They demonstrate that they are fools, making it unnecessary.

I'm not familiar with this command regarding the military. Perhaps you can cite the verse for me.

What I'm beginning to understand here is a distinct problem of understanding. You defend those who break specific no-doubt-about-it commandments, and insist on those of which simple common sense should be of service to fathom. What happened to nuance with you people? Does that only apply when your goofy politicians speak? You sound like a Pharisee tryng to trap me. Try more of an apples to apples comparison.
 

Dan,

Are you open to believing that your doctrine is not from God? Is there anything that will convince you?
 

Dan,

"So which is it? Shall I listen to you or to what I learned when I prayed and tested God's Word?"

The point is, what are you testing it against? Let me restate that: You don't test God's word, you test what you think your getting from your prayers, meditations, revelations, readings against God's Word in Scripture.
 

Drio,

I think you're a little off base as to the degree of "chattlehood" of women in the OT. I don't recall a case where they were treated in the manner you describe. They were still people, but they had a second class citizen type of standing, not an object type that could be "taken, used, disposed of, even killed with a minimum of problem." Did Rowena tell you that?
 

ER,

The "dying to self" part is as regards our relationship to God, not to other people. We are to serve, yes, but there is a pecking order with God on top, then service to others. If the others for whom we have "died to self" for are evil, where do you go from there? Who are you going to put first? Obviously God. You make it sound as if there's some equivalence in how an individual should comport himself with regards to God and others.
 

Roger said:

"Are you open to believing that your doctrine is not from God? Is there anything that will convince you?"

I must not be using the correct words, as I've answered this question many dozens of times and yet communication has not been achieved.

YES. I'm open to believing my doctrine is not from God. On any point.

I was open to believing my doctrine was not from God (barely) when I believed gays shouldn't marry. I'm open now to the possibility that I'm wrong now that I DO believe gays can marry with God's sweet blessing.

I've demonstrated that I'm open to change in that I've actually changed my position when I have read the Bible more closely, prayed about the subject, asked for wisdom and grace. So, Yes, yes, YES, I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

I'll go further and tell you it's a definitive reality that I'm sometimes wrong. Just ask my wife or kids.

What convinced me that gay marriage was okay is Bible study, God's leadership, the real world and prayer. I can be equally changed by that same combination - Testing what I believe against God's Word and God's revelation.

Does that answer the question?

And you, could you possibly be wrong on this matter, as well?

Do you suspect that you'll be hellbound if you die today condemning gay marriage and get to heaven and find out that doing such put you in a state of continued and willful sin?

Would you go to a heaven where gay folk lived together?
 

Marshall answered several scriptures as to whether or not he believed them and followed them, including this one:

"The Book says "I" shouldn't charge interest. I don't think you can make the case that that refers to a business, the purpose of which is to lend money."

So what you're saying, Marshall, is that you don't take it just as it literally reads (Don't charge interest. Period. Kill men who lay with men. Period. Don't call your brothers "fools." Period.)

No. You read those verses in the context of greater understanding from within the whole of the Bible and notably some sources outside the Bible (including your God-given logic) and come to a conclusion about what those verses mean - as opposed to what they directly say.

Well done. Just as it ought to be.
 

"If you believe that turning the other cheek means to allow someone to murder you, by all means, enjoy."

Actually, yes. I do believe that's what it means. Jesus did so, and look where it got him: by becoming the LEAST, he became the greatest. Sound familar?

Would I let myself be murdered? Not if I could help it. Because I'm a selfish human, hellbent, as it were, to defend my life. But self-preservation itself actually does contradict Jesus's example.

The Way is a tough row. None of us -- no, not one -- follows it.

Re, dying to self, for others, as well as God. Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Do I die to myself, that is, do I empty myself of myself for others? No. I'm human. But what do you think loving your enemies means? Kill them?

On doctrine: I dare say NO doctrine is totally of God. Because NO doctrine is free of human meddling. The Way is about lots of things, but a set of beliefs, I don't think, is oner of them, at least not beyond the very rudimentary framework I comprehended at age 8 when I walked the aisle in a Southern Baptist church 35 years ago:

There is God. Here am I. Jesus in between -- and I'm going on 36 years figuring out what just THAT means, faithing God to preserve me, whether I am right or wrong on the details.

Dan: As it should be. Amen. Southern Baptists used to teach that very thing. Then they quit.
 

Dan said:>What convinced me that gay marriage was okay is Bible study, God's leadership, the real world and prayer.

Dan,
Thanks for the reply. Do you see the problem? You've allowed your experiences to shape your theology (listed as 'the real world' in your answer). And as you've said many times, we're fallible. So, how can we (as sinners) be allowed to have ANY SAY WHATSOEVER in what sin is? We can't. Only God can be allowed to say what sin is. That's why we go to His word with a teachable spirit, without a personal agenda or one shaped from experience. Experiences are filtered through God's word, not the other way around. Why? Because we live in a world where the enemy prowls around looking for those he can devour. Who is the prince of this world? The Devil is! Why are you letting him have a say in your precious view of what God wants for us?

Eve based her choice on the real world, and was deceived ("Wow, that looks good!" - which I'm sure it did, by the way).
David based his choice with Bathsheba on the real world, and was deceived ("Wow, she's beautiful." - which I'm sure she was).
Saul prosecuted the early church based on his knowledge of the real world and was deceived. ("These followers of Jesus must be stopped. That zealot Jesus claimed he was God, for crying out loud!" - yet how 'real world' was the resurrection? How many in the real world accept it as really happening?)
 

So Roger, can YOU be wrong? Misled on the matter of gay marriage? Mistaken in anyway?

And, if so, are you hellbound?

Why are those questions hard to answer?

As to your assertion that "the real world" is a source of misleading: do you think that real world experiences are some sort of trick? That what we experience with our eyes and senses is not to be trusted?

Are you one of those gnostics who eschew the "real world" as less important or less valid than the "spiritual world"?
 

Tha mark of Cain lives!

In 100 years, queer brothers and sisters will be in every church in the land.

Yet the mark of Cain will live!

Women. Indians. Slaves. Blacks. Homosexuals.

I wonder who Christians will beat up next!
 

Dan, I'll paste this again from above. Does this make sense?

Dan said:>And you? Are you prepared to change your position towards gay marriage if God worked similarly on your heart and mind?

Yes. Given that we're fallible and subject to be deceived in the spiritual realm (no one ever 'arrives' where they are above it all), we have to take our experiences and test them against scripture and ask God to show us the truth of His word. I have meditated over this and asked for God's help to give me wisdom and I've looked at what you are saying and it conflicts with scripture. Here's what He has shown me (note: I'm not smart enough to come up with this on my own!): Scripture tells us to glorify God with our bodies (1 Corinthians 6:20) and God cannot get the glory from homosexual sex. If God is the Creator (and He creates with intent and purpose, not arbitrarily), then He creates us inside AND OUT. That obviously and biologically means that homosexuality is a deviation from the created order. Then there's the testimony of Dennis Jernigan. His testimony is what it is. God (or someone if you will) is delivering people from this lifestyle. Is God double-minded - delivering some and telling others that it's fine? What if the enemy is behind this deception of telling folks it's fine? Then it starts to add up and make sense. The enemy wouldn't deliver someone into a lifestlye that leads to Godly fruit as DJ's life shows. That would mean the enemy is working against himself and he wouldn't do that (see Mark 3:23-29). But it does make sense for him to lead some folks (some saved, and some not saved) into an unsound doctrine that works against God and His glory - and brings division (John 10:10).


Dan said:>That what we experience with our eyes and senses is not to be trusted?

Correct. Why was the apple that Eve ate not obviously bad? Was Bathsheba not beautiful? Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ logical? (I have never personally been resurrected from the dead nor met anybody that was.)
 

Marshall said: "I think you're a little off base as to the degree of "chattlehood" of women in the OT."

You "think"?, You "THINK'?, You want me to prove my point, by examples because you "think" it is wrong. Don't you know? Don't you have items of proof? Say, have you actually read and comprehended the actual words, in a historical way, that are in the Old Testament. Women are second class citizen in America today, third and forth class citizens in places like Saudia Arabia today. Hell, they weren't even "citizens" in the O.T.. Show me where your points are valid. Show me you positive proofs. I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking for your supporting information. Make these exchanges a debate on data or facts maybe even. Or..say, just pile your beams up next to the railroad ties, and then leave the lumber yard the way you came in.
 

Dan said:>
That what we experience with our eyes and senses is not to be trusted?

Roger said:>
Correct. Why was the apple that Eve ate not obviously bad? Was Bathsheba not beautiful?

But then, if we can't trust what our senses tell us, then how do we know what the Bible even says?? Could you be reading something that's not even there except as a trap??!

No, we trust our senses because that's what we have. We do so knowing that our senses may indeed be wrong. We may be delusional, but our senses are what we have to make sense of this world which we DO live in. Of which Jesus, in fact, tells us, "Be in the world, but not of it."

Yes, our world in which we exist, the people and communities around us, our God-given logic, these ALL play a role in informing our decisions. We can't merely "read the Bible" and have the One Right Answer (TM) pop out at us every time.

We exist in God's World. We pray. We take part in community. We fellowship. We read God's Word. We seek to follow in Jesus' steps.

And gosh darn it, sometimes we fail. We lack understanding. We - you and I by our own admission - just sometimes get it wrong. We don't desire to. We don't set out to. But the reality is, as we both freely acknowledge, we sometimes get it wrong.

Thank God for God's grace!
 

Roger said:

"Here's what He has shown me: Scripture tells us to glorify God with our bodies (1 Corinthians 6:20) and God cannot get the glory from homosexual sex...That obviously and biologically means that homosexuality is a deviation from the created order."

Just to point out what should be obvious: "Scripture" does not tell you that. The thoughts above are YOUR interpretation of Scripture.

No where - in zero places in the Bible - does it say that "homosexuality is a deviation from the created order." Nor does the Bible ANYWHERE say "God cannot get glory from homosexual sex."

Just wanting to be clear. We're ALL dealing with our interpretation of a handful of possible scriptures when it comes to homosexuality issues and ZERO scriptures when it comes to gay marriage.
 

The devil made me do it!
 

OK. So when I was little, say from age 4 or 5 to 8 or 9, I often shared a bed with my brother.

I have lain with a man.

Literally speakin' I was sinning, right? I've never repented of it. So I'm doomed, right.

"You're bein' silly, ER."

"Not any sillier than any other alleged-but-not-actual Scriptural literalist," ER says.
 

These are very interesting:

http://www.gaychristian101.com/
Romans-1.html

And:

http://www.gaychristian101.com/
Gay-Centurion.html

Oh heck. The whole site is fascinating.
 

You know, Marshall has gotten a little hung up on something I said about an epiphany, as well as what Dan has been saying about prayer and meditation -- insisting that the Bible should always trump such.

The Bible doesn't trump itself. What I'm saying is the epiphany I had regarding homosexuals and the church, which came sitting behind my home computer watching the UCC "bouncer" TV ad, came after my heart had been softened by the rigors of my mind working out my own concept of salvation, yes, with a certain level of fear and trembling. I am cocksure -- pardon the expression -- about nothing. But I know this: Taking the Bible "as is" is to insult God by not using the mind he gave us. What the Bible says is not only limited by the various writings' contexts of their times, places and circumstances, it is, ironically, liberated from the shackles literalists keep chained to it. Roman, by all serious scholars' accounts, does not talk about homosexual behavior, it talks about temple prostitution -- and just reading the words themselves, o ye literalists, it talks about sexual violence, selfish deviance and unbridled lust. I'm against all that, too, for the record. As for the OT holiness code, it being created, as I understand it, partly to help the people of Israel maintain their cultural distinction while a defeated and subjugated people, I don't see how it applies anyone but them, then, and there.
 

ER,
What if you're wrong on the homosexuality position and all this stuff you're posting just propogates a lie and God's heart is grieved? What if someone is misled by it and causes themselves or others great harm because of what we post on here? Yes, this is serious stuff.



Dan said:>But then, if we can't trust what our senses tell us, then how do we know what the Bible even says??

Great question. If we could test what the Bible says ourselves first (or use the scientific method) we wouldn't need faith, and without faith, it's impossible to please God.

There's what determines our eternal destiny. Do we insist on trusting only what we see (the physical) or do we trust God's word (as only He gives us insight into the unseen - the spiritual)?

Was Eve wrong to eat the apple?
She had her senses - it looked good to her! She had God's word telling her not to eat it, but the serpent got her to question God and instead trust her senses.
Surely trusting our logic and senses can't lead to sin and death? Or can it? What does the Bible say?


Dan said:>Just to point out what should be obvious: "Scripture" does not tell you that. The thoughts above are YOUR interpretation of Scripture.

How do you know what I said was or was not the result of the Holy Spirit? You test it against scripture. You don't just dismiss it right off the bat or be content to not learn anything new on the matter. Remember, the first step in spiritual growth is having a teachable spirit.

Dan said:>No where - in zero places in the Bible - does it say that "homosexuality is a deviation from the created order." Nor does the Bible ANYWHERE say "God cannot get glory from homosexual sex."

Given the fact that homosexuals do not have compatible sex organs, I don't get what you're trying to say. How does God get the glory from homosexual sex? (Remember, that God creates us on the inside and out!)

For example, if a concert violinist performs a classical piece and gets a standing ovation, the musician might give God the glory. What does that mean? That means that God has given them the physical ability (the outside) and talent (the inside) which they have merely reacted to and developed. The enjoyable experience of being in that concert hall was a result of God's good plan.

Apply that to homosexual sex. How does God get the glory from the incompatible sex organs? How does he get the glory from the physical damage done to their bodies?
 

Roger, I have some questions for you!

What if you're wrong on the homosexuality position and all this stuff you're posting just propogates a lie and God's heart is grieved? What if someone is misled by it and causes themselves or others great harm because of what we post on here? Yes, this is serious stuff.

I BELIEVE God's heart IS GRIEVED by the stance that most churches take regarding homosexuality.


Re, incompatible parts:

If you tell me that oral sex, manual stimulation, other sexual activities between a man and woman are wrong because the parts don't match and the acts can't possibly lead to procreation, as you must if you follow your own logic, then you're so far from me I don't really even know where to start.

God glories in love. Love is expressed in more ways than you or I are personally comfortable with, and in more ways than the predominant culture in this country right accepts.

What *about* that gay centurion?!?
 

" ... country right now accepts ..." I meant.
 

Roger said once again:

"How does God get the glory from homosexual sex?"

Roger, you seem to have a prurient interest in this.

How does God get the glory of heterosexual sex? Is it a turn on? Is God a freak, that way?

Why do you keep asking that question? Have you found the secret Code that tells which holes are acceptable holes unto the Lord and which ones are not?

I think similar to ER: God gets glory out of people following God's ways. I find a healthy, committed marriage - gay or straight - to be a following of God's ways.
 

Good timing. From Focus on the Family. Call me a 47-percenter. Dr. Richard Land's direct quote -- thank God -- applies only to fundamentalist churches peopled by the 31 percent.


Most Americans See Bible as Major Source of Truth
from staff reports

Protestants are more likely to see it as without error.

Protestants are most likely to credit the Bible as the inerrant word of God to be taken literally, according to a Gallup Poll. The rest of the population largely said the Bible might be inspired by God, but not literally so.

Gallup has been asking the question since 1991, and the answers remain remarkably unchanged. About 31 percent said they believe the Good Book is infallible. Forty-seven percent said they see the Bible as the inspired word of God, but not to be taken literally.

Frank Newport, editor in chief at Gallup, said we still live in a country where God’s word is taken seriously.

“Religious people around the world who believe that a religious document is inerrant will engage in behaviors and support types of policies which are significantly different than others might and those have real implications for society,” he told Family News in Focus.

The other steady result is that belief in the Bible correlates with church attendance and Protestant theology. Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said such a connection makes sense.

“People who take the Bible seriously are going to go to church," he said. "And if they go to church, they’re going to hear sermons, and they’re going to have Sunday school lessons that are going to teach them that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God.”

Add the people who say the whole Bible is the direct word of God with those who see it as divinely inspired, but who do not take all parts literally, and nearly 80 percent of Americans consider the Bible to be a major source of truth.

“This is a very religious country," Land said, "and it’s getting more so, not less so."
 

Dan said:>Why do you keep asking that question?

Because like Dennis Jernigan's testimony, it refutes the lie that is being propagated as truth.
Dennis Jernigan's testimony is a work of God - it's historical. It can be researched. You can go talk to the man yourself and find out if he's genuine. As for our bodies, they're testimony of God's creating ability. If God only creates us on the inside and then arbitrarily creates our external bodies, then God is not God. He's fallible and untrustworthy.

I ask this more as a rhetorical question to make us think about what's going on here.
How does God get the glory from the physical damage done to our bodies? Paul references that in regards to homosexuality in Romans 1:27. Of course, that is not unique to this sin - as drugs, alcohol, cutting - all that effect our bodies negatively.

Dan said:>How does God get the glory of heterosexual sex? Is it a turn on? Is God a freak, that way?

The more I debate you Dan, I'm finding that you're not trying to understand this. You're not testing what I'm carefully laying out for you to read and to discover for yourself as you take the evidence, examine your heart, and take it to the Lord. Do you doubt God's ability to show you what He's shown me?

The enemy loves to have us waste time debating things that we don't believe or stereotypes that we are not - but that's not why I'm here. There are 100 other things I'd rather be doing than this, but I saw in you an opportunity to correct an error. Not because I have an agenda, or want converts, or anything like that. I saw you asking questions and I thought you might be teachable and willing to learn. I can't make you believe, & I don't want to make you believe. I want you to take these things - test them against scripture, examine yourself, and take them to God and ask Him to show you the truth. Then - and only then - will you come to an understanding and you'll see and you won't have to take any one's word for it. You'll have God's word on it, and you'll know that He knows what He's talking about. But to come to God, we have to get real and engage Him on His terms. We can't go to God with an agenda of self. We've got to come to Him as we are - sinners, who need mercy, grace, and wisdom - just to get through a day.

I'm not picking on you (or ER) - just trying to share some truths that God has revealed to me over time. I'm not the enemy. But we all have a very real enemy and he is a friend to no man. He plays hardball and destroyed lives are in his wake. God is on our side - and even folks who struggle with the sin of homosexuality (or drugs, alcohol, or cutting) find that God can heal and restore. I just don't want to keep anyone from discovering the one who loves them that much. That love is far greater than any physical love we will know on earth.
 

Re, "Do you doubt God's ability to show you what He's shown me?"

I doubt what you think God has shown you. Just as you doubt what I think God has shown me. The truth is a lot more complex than either of us can comprehend, though.

You may err on the side of your concept of God's justice. I may err on the side of my concept of God's grace.

I WILL stand by Grace.


Romans 1 seems to describe behavior like that in a gay orgy, staged by flagrant defiers of all things godly, swimming in their own reprobate selfishness.

I'm all against that, myself, and I'm pretty sure than Dan is, too.
 

Dang it. "... that Dan is, too." I meant.
 

Yes, Dan is. Thank you and what ER said.

"Dennis Jernigan's testimony is a work of God - it's historical."

Indeed. Just as the great Christians I know who happen to be gay whose lives are a work of God. One of the reasons your "testimony" is so irritating Roger, is you state something is the case and seem to be saying that, "therefore, it's true."

That's what God revealed to me, therefore it's true.

That's what Jernigan says, therefore, it's true.

The Bible clearly says X, therefore it's true.

No, those are all opinions. Feelings. Emotions. They may be true or partially true, or perhaps even true for you, but they may just as well be deception or falsehoods. It's not an objective reality.

Just as my position is not objective. It is my interpretation of what I think God is saying in the Bible. You have YOUR interpretation of what you think God is saying in the Bible.

Most likely, one of us is wrong and just doesn't realize it. It's NOT that I haven't listened to what you said (how many times must I say that I once BELIEVED what you say, therefore I KNOW what that meant to believe that, I understood and understand the argument.)

It's that I don't think your position is wrong biblically.

But hey, I could be wrong. Just as you could be.

Fortunately, God's grace is greater than our stupidity.

Amen?
 

"I want you to take these things - test them against scripture, examine yourself, and take them to God and ask Him to show you the truth."

How many times must I address this, Roger? I've done all this repeatedly.
 

Dan, you just wanted to be No. 100! :-)
 

Roger and all:

Did y'all know that there is a big ol' honkin' gay church in Dallas, with, I think, something like 4,000 members?

That's 4,000 Christians -- give or take the percentage of fakers, charlatans and scoundrels in any church -- who could not find a place in any other church and so came together for The Way.

The Cathedral of Hope is both a shame and a beauty -- a shame on Christianity in general for creating a situation that necessitated the Cathdral of Hope, which rises as a beautiful testimony to God's Grace and Love on a dry plain of unGrace and unLove.

Roger, take these things -- test them against Scripture, examine yourself, and take them to God and ask Him to show you the truth.

The "About us" page from the Cathedral of Hope's Web site:

http://www.cathedralofhope.com/
NetCommunity/Page.aspx? &pid=225&srcid=305
 

Oh, and it happens to be a new addition to the UCC flock.
 

No. The Cathedral of Hope came about, as has others like it, because of a certain group of people who have decided to have things their way whether God likes it or not. That's my harsh, in your face response. The harsher answer is more truthful: they cleave unto their lusts and find solace and comfort in the company of like minds.

Quiz time! Which of the following is a label tied to a behavior?

Women. Indians. Slaves. Blacks. Homosexuals.

ER,

If you and your brother weren't doing inappropriate things with each other's private parts, then you weren't doing what the Levitcal Law was referring to, and you know that.

Drio,

Sorry pal, I believe it is YOU who needs to support your assertion that women in OT Israel were treated as poorly as you've assessed. Bear in mind, I'm talking about God-fearing Hebrews, not apostate scumbag Hebrews. I'm the one who was challenging a statement here, so you have to prove your claim first. To be fair, I have no idea how I could easily prove that women were not treated as poorly as you think. But I feel certain you can't back up your position without going back before Moses received the Law. Even then, it's a judgement between two evils made under duress. Go for it.

ER,

Jesus willingly going to His death on the cross was not an example for us unless your death can absolve someone of sin. His death had a distinct purpose. And that rising from the dead in a sanctified state, appearing to your friends is a tough act to duplicate. Now, His life, yes, was a definite example of how we should live, abiding by God's commandments of which one of the greatest was love thy neighbor, but not the only one. Oh yeah, that was just to the Jews of the time, right?

(Hey, I'm gettin' snarky!)

I think that God is GRIEVED by the stances taken by liberal denominations regarding homosexuality. "Love the sinner but IGNORE the sin"? I don't think so.

"God glories in love." Here you'd have a difficult time proving He means "eros" love. I think it would be far easier to determine that references to God's love, His desire that we love each other, etc, are all meant as "agape" love. Sex is not love, it is only lust. Lust is the mechanism by which we are drawn together for procreative purposes. The pleasure insures that it gets done. Revelling and wallowing in lustful urges is worship of the flesh. Even the love between a man his wife is meant to be a love of submission to each other, not a constant exchanging of fluids. It is because we take the vow to submit to each other that we may then enjoy the carnal aspects of our union.
 

"Jesus willingly going to His death on the cross was not an example for us unless your death can absolve someone of sin."

Ummm, what of this?

For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered [some ancient manuscripts, died] for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps.

1 Peter 2:21
 

Marshall, you are going to lsoe on the women and children thing. Go read an ancient history book.

Quiz answer: None. That's the point.

I *was* referring to agape love.

And this is a real hoot: "Lust is the mechanism by which we are drawn together for procreative purposes."

Then you are saying that the very mechanism that God gave us for getting together is sinful. Oh, hmm. Procreation itself is part of the Fall? So the mechanism is too. So the attraction of the sexes, even the different ones, is sinful, even for committed couples? Even boy-girl?. The old saw is true? Sex is nasty! Wow.
 

ER said:>If you tell me that oral sex, manual stimulation, other sexual activities between a man and woman are wrong because the parts don't match and the acts can't possibly lead to procreation, as you must if you follow your own logic, then you're so far from me I don't really even know where to start.

Isaiah felt the same thing toward God when he got a glimpse. It devastated him. It's known as the holiness that is God. It's like I heard a pastor say once, "You're not a bad as you think you are, you're worse." That goes for every single one of us. Take all these topics we've debated here and ask yourself who is the focus of the action - self, or God?

Dan and ER, to ignore the physical side effects of homosexual sex and to promote the behavior as if there are none is a great disservice to folks, to say the least. We're all accountable for our choices and the effects they have (not only on us, but others) - and we're free to make choices - good and bad.

Dan said:>But hey, I could be wrong. Just as you could be.
Fortunately, God's grace is greater than our stupidity.

Dan, that's proof that you're set in your decision and you are not seeking to find out if you might be wrong. You've made up your mind, it suits you and you like it. Why change?

Lost people everyday say that same thing when given the choice to give up self and follow God. "I'm basically a good person, I'm ok. Hell is only for serial killers and evil people."

I'll restate that quote that I posted earlier:
"Again God spoke to me, this time through Matt. 16:24: 'If any man will come after me [be my disciple], let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.' ... God's instructions were that every time there was an uprising of self I was to go to Him directly, immediately and without making any excuse whatever. I was to confess it to Him. I saw that I had been excusing myself for these traits and actions."

This all comes down not to words on paper, but the words spoken by a very real God personally to us that we either obey or don't obey. And that is not between me and Dan ... or me and ER, it's between each of us and God. What will we choose? Self or God? We have the choice - and God will honor our choice (either way).
 

"that's proof that you're set in your decision and you are not seeking to find out if you might be wrong."

Okay Godger. You know best. You know better than I what I think, Godger. All hail Godger.

Myself, I'm telling Godger to go to hell or wherever He-Who-Must-Be-Agreed-With wants to go, but I shan't be following him, no matter how many times he tries to make it a choice between following Godger or going to hell.

For myself, I'll follow God the best I know how - with prayer and bible study - and Godger will have to live with it.
 

Ma said, "To be fair, I have no idea how I could easily prove that women were not treated as poorly as you think."

Normally, in that case, this would be the end of the debate, but not for you I see. So it is not a debate or conversation it is a whole nother exercise.

I don't care to see to your further education. Try reading the Laws of Moses themself. If you can't see it there, then retain your thoughts and opinons and be happy in them.
 

Dan,
Like I said, this is not between me and you. If you feel that way, you're mistaken. This is about our relationship to God. That's personally between me and God - and between you and God. I can't praise you into Heaven or condemn you to Hell. Our choices determine our own destinations. An again - the choice is self or God. Blessings to you as I pray you seek truth with all your heart.

Psalm 119:18
Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law.
 

Of course it's not between you and I, at least in the eternal aspect, Roger. But in the day-to-day world in which we both live, it is between our types of people.

What irritates me about your approach is you seem to (perhaps totally blindly and unaware) put people down, making things a choice between what you're saying or doom.

I couldn't even get an Amen from you when I thanked God for God's grace to cover our sins! Instead you say that such a statement is "proof" that I've a closed mind!

This is the type of nonsense and hubris that turns people away from God and the church and one reason why I bother dialoging with you.

You and I have disagreed on this topic and others, but not once have I suggested that your mind is closed, that you need to read the Bible, that you are uneducated or unfamiliar with God's Word. In short, I have not talked down to you.

Whether you mean to or not, that is how you come across to people, or so it seems to me - demeaning, belittling, know-it-all, patriarchal and authoritarian. And while I, as a brother in Christ, don't really care so much how you come across to me, that approach is making the modern church more and more irrelevant and I do care about that.

Keep an open mind to that message.
 

Amen. And Amen.

Roger does not want anyone to find the truth -- he wants people to find the truth as he sees it, which is a horse of a different color.

And yer right, Dan, about the guilt and shame he uses to undergird his approach. He is as much as said he wants to save us himself, to become like himself.

No thanks.

This truly is the first line of the next Reformation.
 

"yer right, Dan, about the guilt and shame he uses to undergird his approach."

And then, they (the Roger types out there) coat it with some saccharine because they no doubt genuinely love us in their own partriarchal way, and that adds to the nasty taste one finds in their mouths after talking with such a true believer.
 

Dan said:>You and I have disagreed on this topic and others, but not once have I suggested that your mind is closed, that you need to read the Bible, that you are uneducated or unfamiliar with God's Word. In short, I have not talked down to you

Dan,
Spiritual deception is what it is. The truth of God's word penetrating our heart is the only remedy. It's not personal. We're all capable of being deceived. I will always have to apologize for not coming across perfectly but I will not apologize for the truth. If we compromise the truth, we have nothing. So, you asked me to take into account how I come across. Point taken. I ask you to open your mind to the fact that God's grace covers everything but unrepentant sin. Yes, God's grace can cover any sin. But only if we confess it. Believers have the indwelling Holy Spirit to prompt them of sin. The lost don't have that benefit. So, their eternal destiny is based on their understanding of sin so they can repent of it. I don't want to be preaching a message that 'a sin is not a sin', resulting in people not repenting and therefore spending an eternity in hell because of it.


ER:>Roger does not want anyone to find the truth -- he wants people to find the truth as he sees it, which is a horse of a different color.

Ok Dan. Where does the spirit of that statement fall within what you just asked of me? ER, I'm not the enemy. I have been very patient and nice to you and Dan (or at least I hope I come across that way - and as Dan pointed out, I need to continue to improve on how I'm perceived as it's not as I am) - and this is the response? Like I said before, the enemy will have us debate things we don't believe and stereotypes we are not. I will fight for truth, and I'll die on that hill. I'll even tolerate being called things like 'Drodger' for the good fight. :) You couldn't be more wrong. What God thinks is objective truth and means everything. What every man thinks is subjective and means nothing. The difference is obvious. If what I'm saying is not biblical, fine, you have God's blessing to ignore it. If what I'm saying is truth from God's word, you are not given God's blessing to ignore it. So, test what I'm saying in light of scripture and see if it's the truth or not. God will hold us accountable to understanding those truths that we're capable of understanding.
 

"If what I'm saying is not biblical, fine, you have God's blessing to ignore it."

To this, I can heartily say, Amen. And I shall.

Peace.
 

Dan said:>To this, I can heartily say, Amen. And I shall.

You researched those several verses, spent time meditating over them, examining yourself, and praying for God to show you truth all in the span of 10 seconds it took you to type that last reply?

Remember the battle is self vs God. Which will we choose? It's a daily spiritual battle. We'll never grow spiritually without dying to self first. If you believe your self is 100% right on this and in no need of guidance from God, you have that choice.

Lest we forget the magnitude of this, I say again: I don't want to be preaching a message that 'a sin is not a sin', resulting in people not repenting and therefore spending an eternity in hell because of it.
 

So you DO think that if you're wrong on this sin, that you will spend an eternity in hell over it?

Wow. No wonder you guys live in such fear.
 

Claims of "spiritual deception" are the last bastion of a fundamentalist who cannot convince someone else that he is right -- right! correct! unassailable! -- on all points.

Roger. You are being smug, and condescending, and you are prosyletizing for a specific point of view on a highly charged, controversial point of belief that is an honest disagreement among brothers and sisters in Christ.

Nip it.

You're saying, "Read, pray and mediate and you will see it my way, which is God's way, or you will be wrong."

I say to you the same: Read the links I've posted. Read about the real meaning of Romans 1, read about the likelihood that the healed centurion's servant was gay, read the other scholarly studies of Scriptures, reexamine your own heart-felt convictions, and actually test them against what the Bible says in context, not what it says in your personal worldview -- as Dan has, and as I have.

If you have NOT, don't come back here and smarmily accuse Dan, or me, of being stubbornly blind to truth.

Wrap up your crusade, Roger. This is fixin' to get even more personal and for Christ's sake I'll shut it down before it goes too much further.
 

Dan said:>So you DO think that if you're wrong on this sin, that you will spend an eternity in hell over it?

Ok, your question implies that a believer can go through all of life unaware of a certain sin as they live their life committing it. Scripture doesn't teach that. That would mean that God is unfair - holding us accountable for something we're not capable of seeing. And He can't merely dismiss sin. If He did that, He wouldn't be just! See the problem?

Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit indwells the believer. The believer is God's child. Why would Father God not warn His children of sin and discipline them when they disobey? Both of those principles are taught in scripture.

Scripture says that those that live unrepentant lifestyles (note: not just a sudden succumbing to temptation) are lost.

So, when we put those 2 together, we conclude that God will not allow His children to live a life of sin. (Which is the only way He can be both just in His treatment of sin and fair towards the sinner.) Sure, they'll sin from time to time but they'll not feel the same toward sin as they did before they were saved. They are a new creature in Christ. They can no longer go back and live that life because they have been changed. Like I heard a preacher once say, "The most miserable person in this world is the Christian who has just sinned. He can no longer sin and feel good about it."
 

ER said:>You're saying, "Read, pray and mediate and you will see it my way, which is God's way, or you will be wrong."

I have no personal interpretation at stake here. That's the reason I wanted you to test it against scripture. I never claimed it was 'my way'.

ER said:>don't come back here and smarmily accuse Dan, or me, of being stubbornly blind to truth.

It's called self. I'm well aware of that nature. I have it too!
Do you believe you have never been deceived by any spiritual thing ever in your life? I sure have! Did I know it at the time? No. But looking back I can see it clearly.
 

"Ok, your question implies that a believer can go through all of life unaware of a certain sin as they live their life committing it. Scripture doesn't teach that."

Well apparently we can, can't we Roger? I mean, as you have said, you and I believe seemingly oppositely on the matter of gay marriage. And yet, you feel no awareness of your position as a sin. I feel no awareness of my position as a sin.

In fact, I feel at peace with the interpretation of scripture that I have reached after prayer and Bible study. You apparently do, too.

And yet, one of us is wrong. Why is that?

I suspect your answer is that, clearly, I'm wrong about the sin and I'm deceived about being wrong. Is that your answer?

On this point:
"That would mean that God is unfair - holding us accountable for something we're not capable of seeing."

I think you're right. It would be unfair of God to create us in such a way that we weren't capable of being Right on every sin and then to punish us for it.

AND YET, we know that we aren't right on every sin. Or do we? You appear to disagree. By what you're saying above, you seem to be saying that we can know perfectly what is and isn't a sin on every point.

Is that what you're saying?

And, if so, then I would ask you again to please send us the list of sins that you know perfectly so that we won't engage in them and all thanks will be to Roger.

But I have some bad news for you, Roger. You don't know perfectly what is and isn't a sin. That's not reality. Not biblically nor just in the real world in which we live.

Do you seriously think you do have this perfect knowledge?
 

Dan said:>please send us the list of sins that you know perfectly so that we won't engage in them

You have a Bible, right? This is where we have to believe in absolute truth. If we have believed the lies that tell us that God's word can't be trusted (where have we heard that before in scripture?), then we're left with nothing. As a result, everyone will declare what a sin is or isn't based on their own experience or preference. Any sin will be up for grabs as acceptable at one time or another. How out of control is that? Sinners are left with the duty of figuring out what sin is! Sounds like the inmates running the asylum, huh?


Dan said:>Do you seriously think you do have this perfect knowledge?

Deuteronomy 29:29
“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

or more clearly from The Message:

God, our God, will take care of the hidden things but the revealed things are our business. It's up to us and our children to attend to all the terms in this Revelation.

I believe God's word is without error and contains what we need to know. Do you believe that God will not respond to an honest truth seeker seeking wisdom in His word? You apparently doubt the possibility. But look, God answers that doubt...and tells us not to doubt but to trust Him...

James 1:5-8
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
 

Dude. To conflate Deuteronomy and James is nuts. To believe the Bible is "without error" is ludicrous on its face. If you can read, you can find contradictions and stuff that is not accurate. You act like it's a Big Book of Gotcha and you wield it like weapon. The Gospel Gun, indeed.

This thread is dead. The body of Christian charity is going in circles of mistrust and false accusations, as it goes down the drain.
 

I'm either gonna have to stone him or get stoned, one of the two. Hell, I'll get plastered instead. Plaster comes from stone don't it?
Close enough.
 

“Do you believe that God will not respond to an honest truth seeker seeking wisdom in His word? You apparently doubt the possibility.”

I don’t doubt God can do anything. I doubt your ability to hear God correctly.

And my ability.

God is without error. You and I are not.

Especially you.
 

ER,

I don't know where you got the idea I thought lust was sinful. I was merely making a distinction between lust and love. This followed comments of yours where you said "God glories in love" which came after a paragraph dealing with various sexual activities. This is why it seemed as if you were mixing "eros" and "agape".

Is there an ancient history book that can give testimony to ancient Hebrews treating their women as harshly as Dr. Lobo (I feel so foolish not reading his moniker properly! Damned font!) implies. I'm well aware that men were held in higher regard (by the men, for sure). I'm aware that population counts were of men and women and children had to be guessed at. But there's nothing to suggest they were brutalized on any regular basis and this is all I'm saying. The Mosaic Law doesn't speak of beating them as per the Qu'ran, or prohibit them driving the camel, or not learning. Second class yes, one can see this. Gum on the sole of men's sandals, not so much. It's certainly not apparent in reading the Bible and I'm not going to read into it what ain't there, be it to argue in my favor or the good Dr.'s. But it does tend to support what I said about if a law says a man is prohibited from some activity or behavior, then it would only follow that it would go for the women and perhaps go double. Does that really sound like an unreasonable assumption?

But anyway, I too, am growing tired of this debate. Although you, sir, have offered up a link or two to bolster your argument (which I'll check out, though I doubt I'll see new stuff that hasn't been expertly refuted), that hasn't been the case with others here on your side, and I also have grown tired of trying to support my side to your pal but then having to take his word for his arguments. So I will take a break from it all. I'm sure it will be taken up again at some point and I'll jump back in. On to other things.
 

Before you go:

You are confusing treatment with status. No one said anythign about how women and children were TREATED. At least I didn't. We -- I, anyway -- was talking about legal status. And the legal status of women and children was nil. So the commandemtns were given to a man, Moses, to be read to men, to apply to men. That's the only way the admnomnishment not to covet your neighbor's wife, or livestock, makes sense; both were considered chattel! All were consifdered property that one could COVET.

Now, one doesn't mistreat one's prized camel, or horse, or wife. But there are Simon Legrees in all societies. Treatment, though, again, is not what we were talking about. Legal status, and the lack of legal rights, were.
 

But after checking two different dictionaries, I've only found the word to imply "a sincere desire or longing for". With that, one can definitely covet most anything, and as one of the Big Ten, suggests the adultery prohibition. I'm not aware of this word being the best translation for something with a different meaning than I've found above. "They were counted as "property" to be taken, used, disposed of, even killed with a minimum of problem." This sounds a bit more severe than how I understand it and, by your remarks, how even you understand it. It seems the problem here, aside from his overall tone, is the difficulty in making one's self clear in this medium. Perhaps if he focussed on that rather than flippancy, we'd get through it all more effeciently.
 

Oh, and it shouldn't be assumed that comments such as "I think..." or "I am unaware..." means I have no education in the topic. Even vaunted professors and UCC preachers are likely to use such expressions at times. It means what it means. Or soes that "knowing nothing" stuff only apply to people on my side of the issue?
 

"Perhaps if he focussed on that rather than flippancy, we'd get through it all more effeciently," he said flippantly.

Hee hee.

Off to work!
 

Dan said:>I don’t doubt God can do anything.

How about deliver someone from the homosexual lifestyle? For example, observe Dennis Jernigan. He's now is married and has 9 kids.

You say you don't doubt God can do anything, but I don't think you really believe it yet (observing your previous statements on this case).

you said:>God is without error.

If God is without error, then it logically follows that the Holy Spirit is without error too.

2 Peter 1:19-21
And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

There we see the Holy Spirit's role in scripture. Why would God be involved in the beginning of scripture if He wasn't going to be involved in the helping of us understand it? Now what can keep us from understanding it? Self.

Dan said:>I doubt your ability to hear God correctly.

I assume that only applies to the parts you disagree with, correct? See Dan, 'self' is still at work here. We can't be the referee in God's word and still be honest with Him and say "God, I'm ready to accept whatever You have to say!" We're not fooling Him.
 

Then Dennis was delivered from living a lie. As are those set free in Christ to be honest with themselves about who they are: They are delivered from the lie of living as a heterosexual when they actually are homosexual.

On the Peter references:

References to Scripture in Scripture itself do not -- could not -- refer to the Bible as we know it, since it didn't fricking exist. Peter is referring obviously to the Hebrew Scriptures, which did exist. And, he is interpreting them, to boot. The Bible can only confirm its "inerrancy" if one first believes the extrabiblical superstition that the Bible is inerrant on all things. (I'll give you this: It is sufficient unto salvation, but even that doesn't mean it contains "all truth.")

Man, this is making me tired.
 

And just for giggles, I'll say it one last time here.

I'm always standing ready to accept what God has to say.

I have little use for what Roger has to say.

Don't confuse the two.

And I don't have little use for what Roger has to say NOT because I disagree with what he says, but because of HOW he says it. Again, you make the assumption in your statements that because you say it, it must be God's Word.

Which is amusing but sad.

And, last time for this, don't assume you know what I think. You're not that omniscient.

I do indeed think God can "deliver Dennis from the gay lifestyle." Just as I think God could deliver you from the heterosexual lifestyle. I don't see it happening, but God could do it.

God could convince you that you ought to be a flaming queen dancing down the street with a padded bra and a G string french kissing Bill Clinton's dog.

I just don't see it happening, but God could do it. It's the advantage of being God.
 

>Again, you make the assumption in your statements that because you say it, it must be God's Word.

Nope. Never have I claimed that I am the source of truth. Do you have this same attitude toward your preacher on Sundays? Or do they stand and say, "I have something to say, not sure if it's true, take it or leave it, sorry to bother you, hope your not offended, etc....(and then proceed to preach)" That's ridiculous. Don't apologize for truth Dan. Something is either true or it's a lie. Stand on truth so that others may hear and know. As always, this is about you testing what I'm saying against scripture and not just leaving it or knocking it down. That's not fair to you or me.

>Just as I think God could deliver you from the heterosexual lifestyle. I don't see it happening, but God could do it.

I don't see DJ marrying a man and having another 9 kids either. I'm sure that won't (read: can't) happen! Why won't God allow DJ to procreate with another man? Is it because He has created men a certain way? If God didn't create DJ, who did?

Dan said:>but God could do it.

Do you believe God can do something against His will and word? To deliver people from the homosexual lifestyle and to also deliver people into that lifestyle is a conflict. Jesus has told us that will not happen.
From Luke:
17 But He, knowing their thoughts, said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and a house divided against a house falls.
 

"Do you believe God can do something against His will and word? To deliver people from the homosexual lifestyle and to also deliver people into that lifestyle is a conflict."

That's what I've indicated. I agree that one of us is mistaken. I think it's you and you're committing the sin of pushing people out of the church for unfounded reasons.

And that's why I ask you, "if you die in this willful sin, are you hellbound?"

And that's where you've said, "But we'll KNOW that we've committed a sin."

And I say:

But YOU don't know right now. Nor do I know that I'm sinning on this point. So obviously, one of us is sincerely mistaken. We're not thinking, "I'm wrong on this, but I'm rejecting what God wants in favor of what I want!"

No, we both sincerely think we're right and the other is sinning in their position and one of us is sincerely wrong.

And that's where I ask, "So, do you think God's grace won't cover our sincere mistakes?"

And where YOU say, "God wouldn't make it so that God punishes us for what we can't help."

And I agree.

But then you say "BUT we CAN know! Because 1 Peter uses the word know somewhere in it, don't you see?"

And then I point out that one of US doesn't know. We both have prayerfully studied the Bible and come to our conclusions and we disagree on this and many other topics no doubt on which we've both studied God's Word. And so I ask you, "Does that mean that we're hellbound because of our lack of being able to perfectly divine God's Word?"

And then the circle starts over again. And on and on it goes.
 

ROGER:

Waup in the commentsd arre two links I put up regarding the possibility of the centirion's servant, who Jesus healed, being gay; and another link about the actual context of what Paul was talking about in Roman 1, temple prostitutes.

Until you read them, and engage them in these comments, you're out. Any comment that does not engage one or both of those articles will be deleted.

Not being mean. But as the host here, I am taking it upon myself to require this of you.

Comment on those links, or do not comment. Cheers. I do not want to delete your comments, tiresome as they've become. But I will.

Dan, I ask for a pause, to see if Roger decides to actually discuss the meat of our disagreement, or just continue to prosyletize for his particular point of view.

It's up to you, Roger.
 

ER,
If I answer your questions, can I answer Dan's after I'm done? He has a question that was legitimate too.
 

Sure, brother. I just want to make sure that you've done what I've asked you to do, since Dan and I have done -- before you asked -- that we do what you want us to do, in terms of searching the Scriptures, seeking discernment, etc.

If we still disagree -- and I am almost positive we will -- then let's let it be. Let it be. This kind of debate, if goes too longm, does more harm for the cause of Christ than good, if it hasn't done so already.
 

I have a personal relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ and we were talking the other day and He told me that He wishes you would all put a sock in it. He's too kind to tell you Himself. :)
 

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html says:>He was not making a sweeping, universal condemnation of any and all same sex activity, divorced from the cultural and historical context of his argument against idolatry.

They didn't have the word 'homosexuality' back then, so Paul had to define it by what it is. Then it's called a sin, right there in the context. No qualifers of what type of homosexual activity is given, therefore no exceptions can be made It's called a sin by definition. That transcends the time and culture. If it's a sin by definition then, it still is today.



http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html says:>Just so, the Greek word pais carried an idiomatic meaning for native Greek speakers for many centuries prior to Matthew writing his Gospel. That meaning was "beloved or same sex lover."

I'm not a Greek scholar. I'll have to read some more on this. But it appears that the word pais doesn't define a homosexual (as Romans 1 does - by explicit definition), so we can't say pais = homosexual. That's reading something into the text that isn't there. Context is one thing; reading something into it is another.
 

OK, Roger. Thanks.

Knock yerself out. I'm with The Other Brother, tho.

I am weary of this topic.

But I'll let it run its course.
 

(I apologize for the long post in advance, but this is deep stuff that is hard to explain in a few words...so bear with me)

ER, Thanks for your patience. I know this has been long.

Dan,
You're theology seems to suggest that since man is fallible, he'll be prone to practice some sins and not know them until after death and God will show man the sin, and then offer grace for that sin because we're not perfect. Then another time you talked about you had peace over your position on homosexuality. That has no significance at all in your theology. By what you've said, you could be wrong on that and then God could show you after you die and then "no harm", God offers grace, and "all is well."

For all that to add up, God would have to be indifferent toward sin. Look at the Cross, obviously that is not the case. If God let some sins slide and was passive towards some (ie - not informing His children that something is a sin), then that means He is not just in His treatment of sin. Also, since sin always has consequences, that means He is cruel towards His children by not informing them of the things that harm them.

There is nothing in scripture to tell us that the child of God can keep on sinning without either repenting or being chastised by Father God to bring them back to obedience. But you say, "Our imperfection may mean we don't always see God when he tries to get our attention." I guarantee, just as a child certainly knows and remembers the times they were punished by their parents for disobeying - the child of God will know when God is working on them! Remember who we're talking about here - God! He is not limited by our weakness!

You said:>And so I ask you, "Does that mean that we're hellbound because of our lack of being able to perfectly divine God's Word?"

Where in scripture do we learn that salvation and sanctification are up to us? It's a work of God. It's just a matter of us obeying or not. Our ONLY job is to obey. The power to inform, transform, and grow is up to God. God will not force that upon us though. It's possible to be deceived in what it is God is looking for and who He is and therefore someone can live their life for a lie as they sincerely think they are following God. Those are the folks who Jesus talks about in Matt. 7:21-23 apparently. They were sincerely following God, but it turns out it was a deception and wasn't God at all. Jesus never knew them. The enemy had fooled them with his clever and subtle deceptions. That's where the absolute truth of God's word is indispensable. Only God's word can refute the deceptions that we're prone to fall into if we use just our senses. We're no match for Satan and his schemes. However, Satan is no match for God. So, we don't try to fight a losing battle in our own strength - we go with God's word and therein is victory.

1 John talks about these very things we've been talking about.

1 John 3:5-9
verse 7:
Born of God points to divine action. There is something supernatural about the life of the Christian. He has been regenerated by the very power of God. Once again we must give present tenses their full continuative force. The man born of God does not make a practice of sinning. Indeed, he cannot sin. John has already repudiated the doctrine of sinless perfection (1:8,10), and we must not interpret these words in such a way as to contradict those. He is saying that sin and the Christian are radically opposed. 'John is arguing rather the incongruity than the impossibility of sin in the Christian' (Stott). Should a Christian sin that would be an act completely out of character. On this occasion he gives a reason for the believer's inability to sin: God's nature (Gk. 'seed') abides in him. It is most unusual to have the metaphor pressed in this way. It stresses the fact that there is a divine power at work with the believer. Abides shows that this is not occasional. It is God's continuing gift to His people.

Salvation and sanctification are a works of God. If we view it as our job, maybe it currently is because we've never let Him do it?

We all must examine ourselves in light of the truth of God's word - and God's word is good news. We don't have to try to live the Christian life in our own strength (which is impossible anyway). He will be our strength for us!
 

Got to give credit where credit is due. That commentary on 1 John 3:5-9 was out of a study Bible I have. I used it because they could say it much better than I could.
 

And round and round it goes.

We are saved by God's grace. Not by works. If you are wrong on this sin, then you are doomed. God punishes you for not living right. But we are saved by God's grace. Not by worksifyouarewrongonthissinthenyouaredoomed.
Godpunishesyoufornotlivingright.
Butwearesavedbygodsgracenotbyworks.

And round and round it goes.

I hope for your sake that you're wrong about needing to be able to perfectly know what is and isn't a sin, Roger.

Otherwise, see you in hell.
 

Dan,
If you continue to see me as the enemy, then the real enemy has won. Let's not let him win this one, ok?
 

For the record is "the real enemy" Dan with his anything-goes-so-let's-marry-a-goat or Roger with his vicious-prejudice-masquerading-as-righteousness?

I wouldn't go to church with either of you---NOT that either of you would ask me. You wouldn't have time between arguments.

Did you think everyone who read this was a Christian? Did you even care?

A bunch of wind that fills no sails ...
 

Dan,

Are you looking for a certain answer? I'm answering your questions the best I can, but it's probably not what you expected to hear.
 

Sorry. I've made this too complicated.

Dan said:>We are saved by God's grace. Not by works. If you are wrong on this sin, then you are doomed. God punishes you for not living right.

Given that there is no such thing as a believer who does not love the Lord and His word, here goes:

Dan said:>We are saved by God's grace. Not by works.

True statement.

Dan said:>If you are wrong on this sin, then you are doomed.

God's word is our guide. That is where we find what sin is.
If God's word is not your guide, you have nothing. Thus the circular argument will begin and never end.

Upon who does our salvation rest? Us or God?

If it's us, then your question makes perfect sense: You said "If you are wrong on this sin, then you are doomed."
Correct. If salvation is up to you, you have to be perfect.

If it's God, then He comes into our life and indwells us and He gives us strength and guidance. We become His child and He is our Father. Just like an earthly parent, sometimes discipline is necessary as we grow from a babe in Christ to a more mature person in Christ.

You are trying to explain salvation and the Christian life apart from the indwelling and empowering of the Holy Spirit. Scripture states there is no such thing.
 

And Roger, you have reduced what it means to be a Christian to the act of believing a certain thing. And that is a "work."

As I've said, perhaps clumsily, before: I trust God radically, without much regard for whether I have the details right about the religion that has grown up around Jesus.

What's most important to you? Your relationship with God through Christ or your understanding of the Bible?

If you say that your relationship with God is based on your understanding of the Bible, then you are putting the Bible first in your life, not a relationship with God through Christ.

It's a hell of a conundrum, but there it is. Because if you say that your only awareness of God and Christ has come through the Bible, then you are dismissing the assertion IN the bible that the creation itself cries out and that God could turn rocks into children of Abraham for His purpose.

What a bitch.

You're about done here, brother. Make the most of it.
 

Dan said:>And Roger, you have reduced what it means to be a Christian to the act of believing a certain thing. And that is a "work."

Salvation is a matter of the heart. A heart obedient to the word of God is not a 'work'. That's the only thing a lost person needs to be saved. It appears to be the only thing you don't have. You're nice to me until I bring up God's word. Your words and attitude toward me then drasticly change. It's not Roger's word. It's God's word.

Dan said:>What's most important to you? Your relationship with God through Christ or your understanding of the Bible?

There is no relationship with God through Christ apart from the word of God. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Deception is trusting self over the word of God. We are nothing. Our works are nothing. Our sincerity will not save us. Our senses are no substitute for the revelation of God.

As I said before:
there is no such thing as a believer who does not love the Lord and His word. I cannot love Dan and then go to someone else and call Dan a liar. Likewise, you cannot say you love the Lord and then demonstrate to me as you have here that you have a problem with His word. Also, we love the Lord by how we treat our brothers (1 John 3:14-15). You've cursed at me and told me to go to hell all in the course of this discussion. The door is not on closed on you Dan. It's open until the day we die. But until your heart changes toward God's word, there will be no transformation. You will still be in the flesh.

Don't get mad at me. My words can't praise you into heaven, or curse you into hell. We all determine our destiny by our own decisions. I can just be truthful with you - that's the best thing a friend can do for another. I don't know if you call me a friend but hopefully one day you'll be thankful I have been honest with you. The truth hurts sometimes, but the word of God has been called a double-edged sword. If it doesn't cut to save us (unto salvation), it'll cut to slay us (into judgement). It's better to be alive in Christ than dead in self.
 

Dude, Roger: I was the one who said the things your just reacted to, not Dan.

And you've finally worn yourself, and me, out.

Peace.