|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2008 12:37:24 PM · #1601 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
I found this article in Newsweek rather uplifting. I doubt it will change any minds here, but I'd be interested in the responses. |
Thanks for posting that Gary. Somehow, it did actually make me feel better, just when I needed it :) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:03:17 PM · #1602 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
I found this article in Newsweek rather uplifting. I doubt it will change any minds here, but I'd be interested in the responses. |
At first reading, it was more than obvious that Ms. Miller lacks a rudimentary knowledge of what the Bible actually says ( or doesn't say ). I was tempted to post a rebuttal myself, but then found that such a rebuttal had already been formulated by the folks at the Family Research Council. Their complete point-by-point rebuttal can be found at this link.
I doubt it will change any minds here, but then, I doubt that those who agree with Ms. Miller would be inclined to read the rebuttal anyway. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:18:48 PM · #1603 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
I found this article in Newsweek rather uplifting. I doubt it will change any minds here, but I'd be interested in the responses. |
Originally posted by RonB:
At first reading, it was more than obvious that Ms. Miller lacks a rudimentary knowledge of what the Bible actually says ( or doesn't say ). I was tempted to post a rebuttal myself, but then found that such a rebuttal had already been formulated by the folks at the Family Research Council. Their complete point-by-point rebuttal can be found at this link.
I doubt it will change any minds here, but then, I doubt that those who agree with Ms. Miller would be inclined to read the rebuttal anyway. |
Yes, the Family Research Council certainly is *THE* bastion of open-minded, reasonable, forward thinking.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:27:39 PM · #1604 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I found this article in Newsweek rather uplifting. I doubt it will change any minds here, but I'd be interested in the responses. |
At first reading, it was more than obvious that Ms. Miller lacks a rudimentary knowledge of what the Bible actually says ( or doesn't say ). I was tempted to post a rebuttal myself, but then found that such a rebuttal had already been formulated by the folks at the Family Research Council. Their complete point-by-point rebuttal can be found at this link.
I doubt it will change any minds here, but then, I doubt that those who agree with Ms. Miller would be inclined to read the rebuttal anyway. |
What? You couldn't find an article written by Reverend Phelps? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:39:57 PM · #1605 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I found this article in Newsweek rather uplifting. I doubt it will change any minds here, but I'd be interested in the responses. |
At first reading, it was more than obvious that Ms. Miller lacks a rudimentary knowledge of what the Bible actually says ( or doesn't say ). I was tempted to post a rebuttal myself, but then found that such a rebuttal had already been formulated by the folks at the Family Research Council. Their complete point-by-point rebuttal can be found at this link.
I doubt it will change any minds here, but then, I doubt that those who agree with Ms. Miller would be inclined to read the rebuttal anyway. |
That is an interesting article, Ron. I would certainly not try to engage in a debate over the factual nature of the two articles as I am completely unqualified to do so. I would be interested in other rebuttals, pro or con. It seems to me, again as someone unqualified to judge anyone's interpretation of the Bible, that the passages in question can be interpretted in several different ways. Is there any room for acceptance of homosexuality from a Biblical point of view? The authors of the Newsweek article think so. The authors of the Family Research Council article think not. Other opinions? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:44:13 PM · #1606 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I found this article in Newsweek rather uplifting. I doubt it will change any minds here, but I'd be interested in the responses. |
Originally posted by RonB:
At first reading, it was more than obvious that Ms. Miller lacks a rudimentary knowledge of what the Bible actually says ( or doesn't say ). I was tempted to post a rebuttal myself, but then found that such a rebuttal had already been formulated by the folks at the Family Research Council. Their complete point-by-point rebuttal can be found at this link.
I doubt it will change any minds here, but then, I doubt that those who agree with Ms. Miller would be inclined to read the rebuttal anyway. |
Yes, the Family Research Council certainly is *THE* bastion of open-minded, reasonable, forward thinking. |
Yep, they are about as open-minded, reasonable, and forward thinking as Newsweek is.
But at least I read the Newsweek article.
Did you read the FRC article, or did you decide to ignore what it said just because of who wrote it? If you didn't read it, how can YOU claim to be 'open-minded, reasonable, or forward thinking'?
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:08:17 PM · #1607 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I found this article in Newsweek rather uplifting. I doubt it will change any minds here, but I'd be interested in the responses. |
At first reading, it was more than obvious that Ms. Miller lacks a rudimentary knowledge of what the Bible actually says ( or doesn't say ). I was tempted to post a rebuttal myself, but then found that such a rebuttal had already been formulated by the folks at the Family Research Council. Their complete point-by-point rebuttal can be found at this link.
I doubt it will change any minds here, but then, I doubt that those who agree with Ms. Miller would be inclined to read the rebuttal anyway. |
I read the rebuttal. I even read the article so I could read the rebuttal. The article's not great. Newsweek isn't known for its scholarship. But the rebuttal has sketchy scholarship as well. In fact, I was impressed with just how little material they could come up with from the Bible. It's kind of like two people arguing about automobiles based on the Bible. No homosexuals were trying to get married in the world of the Bible.
The main problem with the rebuttal was this lack of data. This forced them to make arguments based on absence. The only mentions of marriage are heterosexual. Uh-huh. And the only mentions of travel are by donkey and foot, so cars must be a sin. As for positive evidence, all they have are a handful of statements against men lying with men, listed with fornication and adultery. See the Catch-22 here? In the Bible, "homosexuality" is a sin because it's outside of marriage. But in their interpretation, you can't get married because homosexuality is a sin.
That leaves them with one verse in Genesis, a poetic description of a man leaving his home and cleaving to his wife. Not much to base oppression on.
Now, just for the fun of it, I'll include two places where the FRC really fumbled the ball:
1. Quoting a scripture that included the word "homosexuals." The term "homosexual" was coined in the 19th century. D'oh!
2. They imply that homosexual marriages are less stable than heterosexual marriages, but what they actually say is that there is "research" comparing homosexual "relationships" to heterosexual marriages. Give homosexuals a universal right to marriage and then we'll start collecting some data, thank you. I'm just dying to know how this "research" was conducted. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:19:48 PM · #1608 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I found this article in Newsweek rather uplifting. I doubt it will change any minds here, but I'd be interested in the responses. |
At first reading, it was more than obvious that Ms. Miller lacks a rudimentary knowledge of what the Bible actually says ( or doesn't say ). I was tempted to post a rebuttal myself, but then found that such a rebuttal had already been formulated by the folks at the Family Research Council. Their complete point-by-point rebuttal can be found at this link.
I doubt it will change any minds here, but then, I doubt that those who agree with Ms. Miller would be inclined to read the rebuttal anyway. |
That is an interesting article, Ron. I would certainly not try to engage in a debate over the factual nature of the two articles as I am completely unqualified to do so. I would be interested in other rebuttals, pro or con. It seems to me, again as someone unqualified to judge anyone's interpretation of the Bible, that the passages in question can be interpretted in several different ways. Is there any room for acceptance of homosexuality from a Biblical point of view? The authors of the Newsweek article think so. The authors of the Family Research Council article think not. Other opinions? |
It is true that SOME of the passages in question can be interpreted in different ways, though MANY are pretty clear when viewed in context, AND, in light of similar teachings elsewhere in scripture. And CLAIMING that the Bible is mute on a particular issue ( lesbian acts ) is proof enough that Ms. Miller did not do the kind of homework expected of a religious editor at a major news magazine, since, as the FRC rebuttal points out, scripture DOES clearly speak to that topic.
As to your question, "Is there any room for acceptance of homosexuality from a Biblical point of view?", the answer depends on your definition of homosexuality.
If by homosexuality you mean sexual orientation, then yes, I believe that there is room for it from a Biblical perspective - just as there is room for any other orientation: lust, anger, greed, envy, etc. I know of many churches, Christian and others, that have groups meeting regularly to help men and women deal with "orientations" towards pornography, gambling, alcohol, drugs, the internet, etc.
But, if by homosexuality you mean sexual acts between same-sex partners, then no, I don't think that there is room for it from a Biblical perspective - just as there is no room for other acts that scripture indicates are immoral: murder, theft, fornication, adultery, false witness, gossip, assault, etc. While the Bible acknowledges that such actions occur, even among believers, they are routinely condemned. Note, however, that according to scripture, for a believer, such actions, no matter how vile, whether past, present, or future, cannot negate their salvation.
Please, I'm not trying to proselytize here - I'm just trying to pre-rebut the response that I know would come if I didn't put in that last note. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:37:59 PM · #1609 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Please, I'm not trying to proselytize here - I'm just trying to pre-rebut the response that I know would come if I didn't put in that last note. |
I appreciate your candor and do not feel that you are proselytizing. You are answering questions brought up by the article, and that obviously requires looking at what's in the Bible. I guess what I found uplifting about the article was the possibility that devoutly Christian people could find a way to accept homosexuality as acceptable behavior. My trouble is that I respect people's faith even if I don't agree with it or with how it affects our nation's politics. I don't agree with denying what I feel are basic human rights based upon that faith, but I also understand that not everyone will share my opinion of what are basic human rights. I was hopeful that what was presented in the Newsweek article opened a door for finding a middle ground (ok, I didn't really think that was possible, but I was interested in other's thoughts). I do agree with posthumous' general feeling about the Newsweek article as well. It's not a particulary strong piece, but I did find it interesting. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:15:03 PM · #1610 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I found this article in Newsweek rather uplifting. I doubt it will change any minds here, but I'd be interested in the responses. |
Originally posted by RonB:
At first reading, it was more than obvious that Ms. Miller lacks a rudimentary knowledge of what the Bible actually says ( or doesn't say ). I was tempted to post a rebuttal myself, but then found that such a rebuttal had already been formulated by the folks at the Family Research Council. Their complete point-by-point rebuttal can be found at this link.
I doubt it will change any minds here, but then, I doubt that those who agree with Ms. Miller would be inclined to read the rebuttal anyway. |
Yes, the Family Research Council certainly is *THE* bastion of open-minded, reasonable, forward thinking. |
Yep, they are about as open-minded, reasonable, and forward thinking as Newsweek is.
But at least I read the Newsweek article.
Did you read the FRC article, or did you decide to ignore what it said just because of who wrote it? If you didn't read it, how can YOU claim to be 'open-minded, reasonable, or forward thinking'? |
Oh, I did read it.
They became mired in the agruing about scripture and didn't address any of the parts about living in today's world as if all the tenets put forth from 2000 years ago are relevant.
I'm becoming more and more biased against the majority of vocal Christians who seem more interested in blind obedience than common sense. I also don't choose to cherry pick that which promotes hate and ignorance which seems to be the prevalent way of fundamentalists.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:16:38 PM · #1611 |
Originally posted by RonB:
did you decide to ignore what it said just because of who wrote it? |
I don't work like that because I'm not afraid to hear an opposite point of view as most Christians seem to be.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:11:10 PM · #1612 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I found this article in Newsweek rather uplifting. I doubt it will change any minds here, but I'd be interested in the responses. |
At first reading, it was more than obvious that Ms. Miller lacks a rudimentary knowledge of what the Bible actually says ( or doesn't say ). I was tempted to post a rebuttal myself, but then found that such a rebuttal had already been formulated by the folks at the Family Research Council. Their complete point-by-point rebuttal can be found at this link.
I doubt it will change any minds here, but then, I doubt that those who agree with Ms. Miller would be inclined to read the rebuttal anyway. |
I read the rebuttal. I even read the article so I could read the rebuttal. The article's not great. Newsweek isn't known for its scholarship. But the rebuttal has sketchy scholarship as well. In fact, I was impressed with just how little material they could come up with from the Bible. It's kind of like two people arguing about automobiles based on the Bible. No homosexuals were trying to get married in the world of the Bible.
The main problem with the rebuttal was this lack of data. This forced them to make arguments based on absence. |
Yes. The same type of argument based on absence that Ms. Miller was forced to make. But your point is well made.
Originally posted by posthumous:
The only mentions of marriage are heterosexual. Uh-huh. And the only mentions of travel are by donkey and foot, so cars must be a sin. |
Since the Bible does not state that homosexual marriage is a sin, your analogy fails.
Originally posted by posthumous:
As for positive evidence, all they have are a handful of statements against men lying with men, listed with fornication and adultery. See the Catch-22 here? In the Bible, "homosexuality" is a sin because it's outside of marriage. But in their interpretation, you can't get married because homosexuality is a sin. |
Homosexuals are also listed with idolaters, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers - yet none of those are considered sin because they are outside of marriage. Where did you get the idea that that's why homosexuality was considered a sin?
Originally posted by posthumous:
That leaves them with one verse in Genesis, a poetic description of a man leaving his home and cleaving to his wife. Not much to base oppression on.
Now, just for the fun of it, I'll include two places where the FRC really fumbled the ball:
1. Quoting a scripture that included the word "homosexuals." The term "homosexual" was coined in the 19th century. D'oh! |
Their mistake was in using a modern interpretation which translates the greek word "arsenokoites" as "homosexuals", when a more correct translation would be "sodomites". Most would agree that the modern translation is not illogical.
Originally posted by posthumous:
2. They imply that homosexual marriages are less stable than heterosexual marriages, but what they actually say is that there is "research" comparing homosexual "relationships" to heterosexual marriages. Give homosexuals a universal right to marriage and then we'll start collecting some data, thank you. |
Strangely enough, I agree with you on this point. The latest research the I have found show that gay marriage or gay partnerships are no better nor any worse in terms of longevity or "cheating", and children reared by same-sex couples, whether natural or adopted, fare no better nor worse than those reared by traditional married partners.
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm just dying to know how this "research" was conducted. |
No matter HOW it was conducted, I'd bet that you would take issue with it, so there is no sense in trying to dredge it up - besides, I agreed with your points :-).
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:30:51 PM · #1613 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I found this article in Newsweek rather uplifting. I doubt it will change any minds here, but I'd be interested in the responses. |
Originally posted by RonB:
At first reading, it was more than obvious that Ms. Miller lacks a rudimentary knowledge of what the Bible actually says ( or doesn't say ). I was tempted to post a rebuttal myself, but then found that such a rebuttal had already been formulated by the folks at the Family Research Council. Their complete point-by-point rebuttal can be found at this link.
I doubt it will change any minds here, but then, I doubt that those who agree with Ms. Miller would be inclined to read the rebuttal anyway. |
Yes, the Family Research Council certainly is *THE* bastion of open-minded, reasonable, forward thinking. |
Yep, they are about as open-minded, reasonable, and forward thinking as Newsweek is.
But at least I read the Newsweek article.
Did you read the FRC article, or did you decide to ignore what it said just because of who wrote it? If you didn't read it, how can YOU claim to be 'open-minded, reasonable, or forward thinking'? |
Oh, I did read it.
They became mired in the agruing about scripture and didn't address any of the parts about living in today's world as if all the tenets put forth from 2000 years ago are relevant. |
They became "mired" in the arguing about scripture, because Ms. Miller was "mired" in using scripture, erroneously ( in their opinion ), to support her arguments.
And, for what it's worth, it would seem from their article that the FRC folks DO feel that the tenets put forth 2000 years ago ARE relevant.
As one who maintains that he doesn't feel its his right to deny anyone else their right to believe as they want to, you sure do seem to want to deny the FRC folks their rights to believe what they want to without criticism from you.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm becoming more and more biased against the majority of vocal Christians who seem more interested in blind obedience than common sense. I also don't choose to cherry pick that which promotes hate and ignorance which seems to be the prevalent way of fundamentalists. |
Then you should be arguing AGAINST Ms. Miller, since she was the one doing the "cherry picking" of that which promotes hate ( of Christian fundamentalism, that is ) and ignorance ( of what the Bible REALLY says ), which seems to be the prevalent way of those opposed to Biblical teaching. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:53:17 PM · #1614 |
| Of course RonB subscribes to all of the rules set out in Leviticus. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:58:54 PM · #1615 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Of course RonB subscribes to all of the rules set out in Leviticus. |
In all fairness, the piece that Ron linked to states that the food related restrictions in Leviticus were explicitly overridden by the New Testament, while the sexual ones were not. At least that was their interpretation. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:08:15 PM · #1616 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Of course RonB subscribes to all of the rules set out in Leviticus. |
If RonB did not live in the Age of Grace, and did not have the NEW Testament available, and did NOT have the indwelling Holy Spirit of God to guide him, then he probably would subscribe to ALL of the rules set out in Leviticus.
However, RonB DOES live in the Age of Grace, and DOES have the NEW Testament available, and DOES have the indwelling Holy Spirit of God to guide him, so RonB does NOT subscribe to ALL of the rules set out in Leviticus, for to do so would be to disrespect Christ and his teachings. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:09:27 PM · #1617 |
| It's all in the interpretation. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:26:07 PM · #1618 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Of course RonB subscribes to all of the rules set out in Leviticus. |
If RonB did not live in the Age of Grace, and did not have the NEW Testament available, and did NOT have the indwelling Holy Spirit of God to guide him, then he probably would subscribe to ALL of the rules set out in Leviticus.
However, RonB DOES live in the Age of Grace, and DOES have the NEW Testament available, and DOES have the indwelling Holy Spirit of God to guide him, so RonB does NOT subscribe to ALL of the rules set out in Leviticus, for to do so would be to disrespect Christ and his teachings. |
Well, you better start by killing your children when they back-talk to you then.
And what do you make of Matthew 5:18-20, which clearly shows Jesus saying that not one part of the Law is to be withdrawn? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 06:28:46 PM · #1619 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Of course RonB subscribes to all of the rules set out in Leviticus. |
If RonB did not live in the Age of Grace, and did not have the NEW Testament available, and did NOT have the indwelling Holy Spirit of God to guide him, then he probably would subscribe to ALL of the rules set out in Leviticus.
However, RonB DOES live in the Age of Grace, and DOES have the NEW Testament available, and DOES have the indwelling Holy Spirit of God to guide him, so RonB does NOT subscribe to ALL of the rules set out in Leviticus, for to do so would be to disrespect Christ and his teachings. |
Well, you better start by killing your children when they back-talk to you then. |
Why? Because Jesus quoted Moses to point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who CLAIMED to be devout followers of the law, but ignored it for the sake of tradition?
Originally posted by Louis:
And what do you make of Matthew 5:18-20, which clearly shows Jesus saying that not one part of the Law is to be withdrawn? |
Your link points to Matthew 5:18-20, which reads thusly:
18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
But, you neglected to include Matthew 5:17, which says
17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
Namely, believers are not subject to "the Law", since Jesus fulfilled it on their behalf ( it's called atonement ). |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 06:35:37 PM · #1620 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Well, you better start by killing your children when they back-talk to you then. |
Why? Because Jesus quoted Moses to point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who CLAIMED to be devout followers of the law, but ignored it for the sake of tradition? |
That's right. He doesn't seem too put off by the murder of one's children in defense of the Law of Moses, so I can only conclude that he's pretty okay with it -- so you should be too.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
And what do you make of Matthew 5:18-20, which clearly shows Jesus saying that not one part of the Law is to be withdrawn? |
...Namely, believers are not subject to "the Law", since Jesus fulfilled it on their behalf ( it's called atonement ). |
And what you've done would be called "selective interpretation". Jesus is clearly saying the Law of Moses still applies, and to remove one stroke of it is an offense. If you're not satisfied with that, when was the last time you ripped off a limb, or other important member, as he commanded you to do a little further down?
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 18:37:16. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 07:05:53 PM · #1621 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Homosexuals are also listed with idolaters, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers - yet none of those are considered sin because they are outside of marriage. Where did you get the idea that that's why homosexuality was considered a sin?
|
I found no mention of homosexuals in the bible. I did find sodomites which as far as I know, referred to people who lived in Sodom. Now, I may not be completely up on bible text but, as far as I know, the bible only refers to the sins of citizens of both Sodom and Gomorrah as wickedness. I don't recall that it was specifically sexual nor homosexual in nature. Where does that come from? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 07:31:33 PM · #1622 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Well, you better start by killing your children when they back-talk to you then. |
Why? Because Jesus quoted Moses to point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who CLAIMED to be devout followers of the law, but ignored it for the sake of tradition? |
That's right. He doesn't seem too put off by the murder of one's children in defense of the Law of Moses, so I can only conclude that he's pretty okay with it -- so you should be too. |
I can see why you, an atheist, would conclude that he's pretty okay with it, but I don't see why I should make the same assumption, since it contradicts the majority of Christ's teachings.
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
And what do you make of Matthew 5:18-20, which clearly shows Jesus saying that not one part of the Law is to be withdrawn? |
...Namely, believers are not subject to "the Law", since Jesus fulfilled it on their behalf ( it's called atonement ). |
And what you've done would be called "selective interpretation". Jesus is clearly saying the Law of Moses still applies, and to remove one stroke of it is an offense. |
NOT. In verse 18 He says: "not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." But in verse 17 He said: "I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." The "until" has occurred.
If that is not enough, consider His last words when He was crucified -( John 19:30 ): "When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.".
P.S. And what you've done would be called "selective interpretation".
Originally posted by Louis:
If you're not satisfied with that, when was the last time you ripped off a limb, or other important member, as he commanded you to do a little further down? |
Perhaps you missed the introductory word "IF" in what you refer to as a "command"? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:27:24 PM · #1623 |
Originally posted by Louis:
And what do you make of Matthew 5:18-20, which clearly shows Jesus saying that not one part of the Law is to be withdrawn? |
I thought about what you say, and figure that if Jesus himself really meant that all of the Law must be obeyed, as YOU claim, then He violated His own command - In John Chapter 8, scripture says:
"1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
Now we Know from the Pharasees reference to the Law delivered by Moses, that the Old Testament commands that a woman caught in adultery must be stoned to death. Yet Jesus, who, by the way, was the ONLY one present who was without sin, did not cast a single stone - in obvious violation of the Old Testament command, which YOU claim He implied was still fully in force.
Since Jesus obviously did not carry out the Old Testament Law by stoning the adulterous woman, yet was considered sinless, who am I to independently decide that the Old Testament Law is still to be obeyed to the full, in contradiction to the example set by Christ?
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:38:17 PM · #1624 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by RonB:
Homosexuals are also listed with idolaters, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers - yet none of those are considered sin because they are outside of marriage. Where did you get the idea that that's why homosexuality was considered a sin?
|
I found no mention of homosexuals in the bible. I did find sodomites which as far as I know, referred to people who lived in Sodom. Now, I may not be completely up on bible text but, as far as I know, the bible only refers to the sins of citizens of both Sodom and Gomorrah as wickedness. I don't recall that it was specifically sexual nor homosexual in nature. Where does that come from? |
From the story of Sodom's destruction in Genesis 19, verses 1-6:
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:00:22 AM · #1625 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Perhaps you missed the introductory word "IF" in what you refer to as a "command"? |
Oh, so you're sinless. (Modest, too.)
I didn't think you would be without an answer, but it's entertaining nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 07:52:32 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 07:52:32 AM EDT.
|
