.
.
Sloth, don’t argue with me. Argue with the Episcopalians and Lutherans. I personally couldn’t care less what your holy book says, because I believe it was written by men, just like every other holy book on the planet.
Let’s cut to the chase. In your opinion:
How is it possible for Episcopalians and Lutherans to accept gays, including gay clergy, when they worship the same bible, have the same faith, and believe in the same Jesus as you?
Are they idiots?
Are they charlatans?
Or is it just possible that their interpretation is earnest, sincere, and yet different than yours?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, don’t argue with me. Argue with the Episcopalians and Lutherans. I personally couldn’t care less what your holy book says, because I believe it was written by men, just like every other holy book on the planet.
Let’s cut to the chase. In your opinion:
How is it possible for Episcopalians and Lutherans to accept gays, including gay clergy, when they worship the same bible, have the same faith, and believe in the same Jesus as you?
Are they idiots?
Are they charlatans?
[/quote]
Liars, ignorant, or a mix of both. If their own holy scripture condemns it, and there’s not one example of condoning it, they’re either not honest, or grossly ignorant of what is supposed to be their own holy text. In fact, it would be better for them to have never claimed to be a way to Christ. They’ve now compounded the sin. I’ll explain.
- Homosexuality is a sin in scripture. Never condoned. Sin number 1.
- Sex is moral between man and wife, marriage. Whatever the state may or may not say in the future, Christianity has been given no authority to include man and man, or wife and wife. So, homosexuality is necessarily always sex outside of marriage, too.
- Relates to 1., homosexuality being condemned and never condoned within Christianity’s holy text. Saying otherwise, and finding followers, makes them guilty of leading others astray with false teachings. These are worse off than before they knew Christ. Check out 2 Peter 2 on false teachers and destruction.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, don’t argue with me. Argue with the Episcopalians and Lutherans. I personally couldn’t care less what your holy book says, because I believe it was written by men, just like every other holy book on the planet.
Let’s cut to the chase. In your opinion:
How is it possible for Episcopalians and Lutherans to accept gays, including gay clergy, when they worship the same bible, have the same faith, and believe in the same Jesus as you?
Are they idiots?
Are they charlatans?
[/quote]
Liars, ignorant, or a mix of both. If their own holy scripture condemns it, and there’s not one example of condoning it, they’re either not honest, or grossly ignorant of what is supposed to be their own holy text. In fact, it would be better for them to have never claimed to be a way to Christ. They’ve now compounded the sin. I’ll explain.
- Homosexuality is a sin in scripture. Never condoned. Sin number 1.
- Sex is moral between man and wife, marriage. Whatever the state may or may not say in the future, Christianity has been given no authority to include man and man, or wife and wife. So, homosexuality is necessarily always sex outside of marriage, too.
- Relates to 1., homosexuality being condemned and never condoned within Christianity’s holy text. Saying otherwise, and finding followers, makes them guilty of leading others astray with false teachings. These are worse off than before they knew Christ. Check out 2 Peter 2 on false teachers and destruction.
[/quote]
Do you wear cotton?
Leviticus 19:19 "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a sect out there that takes this passage literally and forbids its followers from wearing mixed-fibre clothing. They probably think you are also compounding sin.
My point? There’s a good chance there are Christian sects out there who see you as an ignorant liar just as much as you see Churches that accept homosexual marriage as ignorant liars.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]
But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.
You:
[/quote]
because there is no objective standard by which to judge.[/quote]
Yes, there is…That’s my point. That was my point with the “Jews, Hindus, and Muslims believe in the divinity of Christ.” We can (even non-christians) research their holy scriptures and traditions. The holy text of the christian isn’t silent or ambiguous about this. Objectively, I am correct.[/quote]
They clearly state that they aren’t Christians, so there’s no definitional disagreement.
I’m talking about faiths disagreeing on what it actually means to be a Christian.
Look at how Tiribulus defines a Christian vs. Pat. How can you objectively prove one is right and the other is wrong?
Tiribulus believes that as a gay man, I am bound for hell. Pat believes that as a gay man, god will judge my heart and the way I treat my fellow men, and may go to heaven despite being gay. American Episcopalians believe my being gay is a complete non-issue.
All have faith, all believe they are Christians, yet all differ in their views on homosexuality. Who is right?[/quote]
Pat and Tirib agree on what is objectively true in Christianity. A sin. The American Episcopalians have jumped the shark. As I said, it’s moral weight in Christianity is not ambiguous. No faith which says it’s a complete non-issue is a Christian faith. Objectively, again, I am correct. The thing is, I’m sure you have enough knowledge of scripture to know there is no doubt on this issue. It is dealt with and plainly stated. Same goes for adultery or any fornication despite anyone’s attempt to say “well, Christianity doesn’t address any of that.”
[/quote]
The same could be said of divorce, or many other moral issues on which Christians disagree. You say they’ve jumped the shark, and they say they are true Christians. It comes down to how you interpret the bible, what you consider literal vs. allegorical, what you consider absolute vs. cultural, whether you believe in the possibility of ongoing revelation, etc. They are as sincere as you, and they have faith just like you. They’ve simply arrived at a different conclusion.
It’s no different than Tiribulus disagreeing with Pat on predestination vs. double predestination.[/quote]
You’re backtracking. You’ve already admitted that we can objectively discern what is true to the faith. Therefore, you can correctly say I am wrong in mistakenly saying that Hindus and Jews believe in the divinity of Christ. We aren’t disputing “faith” in general. We are discussing a very specific issue, and what is objectively true to the the faith in question, Christianity. You haven’t asked me my evidence, and I can understand why. We both know I have solid evidence, as you know enough of scripture to know what I have in mind. It is, without debate, in complete contradiction to Christianity. You’re hitting reset again, when I’ve already received agreement from you that we can identify teachings objectively true, or not, to in various faiths. But let’s do it again, in another way. “Christianity holds that men and women are not to commit themselves to each other in marriage. ‘Free love’ is instead the moral imperative.” Objectively untrue.
[/quote]
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Jews for Jesus?
The life of St. Issa?
You will find both Jews and Hindus that believe in Jesus divinity. [/quote]
But only Christians believe Jesus is the Christ. All others believe he’s a prophet, nothing more. [/quote]
And there’s atheistic Jews, too. And Christ and the earliest disciples were Jews. I’m talking about the Hebrew/Jewish faith. The old covenant, the torah, full stop. Making sense, yet? Or must I start drawing pictures?[/quote]
You post was, divinity, Jesus.
Divinity Jesus it is.
If you now backpedal and draw ever smaller circles when it comes to what defines a “Christian”, Forlifes point still stands.
[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. He knew exactly what I was asking and answered correctly. If you’re hung up on an “ethnic” description, instead of the obvious religious meaning we’re discussing, than this conversation is simply above you’re understanding. There’s no point in trying to be clever when no scholar would answer that the jewish faith teaches the divinity Christ. Knock it off and troll some other thread. Maybe begin your statement with “Pish-Posh…”[/quote]
No problem.
Pish posh, what a scholar says is irrelevant, if they get big enough as a group they get their own scholars that will tell them precisely what they want to hear, including bible verses and all.
What you are trying to pull off here is a thinly veiled appeal to authority when the issue is that in this area there not even is an universally accepted authority.
Not that it wouldnt be a logical fallacy if there was.
[/quote]
You be trolling.[/quote]
You be using a self referential belief system and language tricks to to exclude everyone who endangers it.
I wish you were trolling.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, don’t argue with me. Argue with the Episcopalians and Lutherans. I personally couldn’t care less what your holy book says, because I believe it was written by men, just like every other holy book on the planet.
Let’s cut to the chase. In your opinion:
How is it possible for Episcopalians and Lutherans to accept gays, including gay clergy, when they worship the same bible, have the same faith, and believe in the same Jesus as you?
Are they idiots?
Are they charlatans?
[/quote]
Liars, ignorant, or a mix of both. If their own holy scripture condemns it, and there’s not one example of condoning it, they’re either not honest, or grossly ignorant of what is supposed to be their own holy text. In fact, it would be better for them to have never claimed to be a way to Christ. They’ve now compounded the sin. I’ll explain.
- Homosexuality is a sin in scripture. Never condoned. Sin number 1.
- Sex is moral between man and wife, marriage. Whatever the state may or may not say in the future, Christianity has been given no authority to include man and man, or wife and wife. So, homosexuality is necessarily always sex outside of marriage, too.
- Relates to 1., homosexuality being condemned and never condoned within Christianity’s holy text. Saying otherwise, and finding followers, makes them guilty of leading others astray with false teachings. These are worse off than before they knew Christ. Check out 2 Peter 2 on false teachers and destruction.
[/quote]
Do you wear cotton?
Leviticus 19:19 "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a sect out there that takes this passage literally and forbids its followers from wearing mixed-fibre clothing. They probably think you are also compounding sin.
My point? There’s a good chance there are Christian sects out there who see you as an ignorant liar just as much as you see Churches that accept homosexual marriage as ignorant liars.[/quote]
I won’t bother schooling you on scripture (the hebrew laws of custom and cleanliness didn’t carry over to the gentiles. You might try reading the epistles and acts). Show that I’m a liar on this topic we’ve been discussing. One verse from either new, or old, or both with homosexuality condoned. Heck, even in a semi-positive light. Just one. Don’t come back here without it. I can give you verses from old to new testament. From old to new covenant. Applying to the hebrew people AND the gentiles. One verse. Sometimes it best to keep silent and not risk looking like a fool. Remember, one verse.
[quote]orion wrote:
You be using a self referential belief system and language tricks to to exclude everyone who endangers it.
I wish you were trolling.
[/quote]
3 people now. Not one has gone toe to toe. One verse, Orion.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, don’t argue with me. Argue with the Episcopalians and Lutherans. I personally couldn’t care less what your holy book says, because I believe it was written by men, just like every other holy book on the planet.
Let’s cut to the chase. In your opinion:
How is it possible for Episcopalians and Lutherans to accept gays, including gay clergy, when they worship the same bible, have the same faith, and believe in the same Jesus as you?
Are they idiots?
Are they charlatans?
[/quote]
Liars, ignorant, or a mix of both. If their own holy scripture condemns it, and there’s not one example of condoning it, they’re either not honest, or grossly ignorant of what is supposed to be their own holy text. In fact, it would be better for them to have never claimed to be a way to Christ. They’ve now compounded the sin. I’ll explain.
- Homosexuality is a sin in scripture. Never condoned. Sin number 1.
- Sex is moral between man and wife, marriage. Whatever the state may or may not say in the future, Christianity has been given no authority to include man and man, or wife and wife. So, homosexuality is necessarily always sex outside of marriage, too.
- Relates to 1., homosexuality being condemned and never condoned within Christianity’s holy text. Saying otherwise, and finding followers, makes them guilty of leading others astray with false teachings. These are worse off than before they knew Christ. Check out 2 Peter 2 on false teachers and destruction.
[/quote]
Do you wear cotton?
Leviticus 19:19 "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a sect out there that takes this passage literally and forbids its followers from wearing mixed-fibre clothing. They probably think you are also compounding sin.
My point? There’s a good chance there are Christian sects out there who see you as an ignorant liar just as much as you see Churches that accept homosexual marriage as ignorant liars.[/quote]
I won’t bother schooling you on scripture (the hebrew laws of custom and cleanliness didn’t carry over to the gentiles. You might try reading the epistles and acts). Show that I’m a liar on this topic we’ve been discussing. One verse from either new, or old, or both with homosexuality condoned. Heck, even in a semi-positive light. Just one. Don’t come back here without it. I can give you verses from old to new testament. From old to new covenant. Applying to the hebrew people AND the gentiles. One verse. Sometimes it best to keep silent and not risk looking like a fool. Remember, one verse.
[/quote]
Do these apply to gentiles?
Does your church allow you to divorce?
Mark 10:8, you â??are no longer two, but one flesh.â?? And, Mark 10:9 reads, â??What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.â??
Mark gets even more hardcore about it a few verses later, in Mark 10:11-12, â??And He said to them, â??Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.â??â??
What about allowing men who have been castrated into church?
Deuteronomy 23:1 reads (this is the Godâ??s Word translation, which spells it out better), â??A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord.â??
My point is not that the Bible condones homosexuality. My point is you and your church do things the bible condemns that would cause other sects to see you as a liar
[quote]therajraj wrote:
My point is not that the Bible condones homosexuality…r[/quote]
Thanks for agreeing.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, don’t argue with me. Argue with the Episcopalians and Lutherans. I personally couldn’t care less what your holy book says, because I believe it was written by men, just like every other holy book on the planet.
Let’s cut to the chase. In your opinion:
How is it possible for Episcopalians and Lutherans to accept gays, including gay clergy, when they worship the same bible, have the same faith, and believe in the same Jesus as you?
Are they idiots?
Are they charlatans?
[/quote]
Liars, ignorant, or a mix of both. If their own holy scripture condemns it, and there’s not one example of condoning it, they’re either not honest, or grossly ignorant of what is supposed to be their own holy text. In fact, it would be better for them to have never claimed to be a way to Christ. They’ve now compounded the sin. I’ll explain.
- Homosexuality is a sin in scripture. Never condoned. Sin number 1.
- Sex is moral between man and wife, marriage. Whatever the state may or may not say in the future, Christianity has been given no authority to include man and man, or wife and wife. So, homosexuality is necessarily always sex outside of marriage, too.
- Relates to 1., homosexuality being condemned and never condoned within Christianity’s holy text. Saying otherwise, and finding followers, makes them guilty of leading others astray with false teachings. These are worse off than before they knew Christ. Check out 2 Peter 2 on false teachers and destruction.
[/quote]
Ok, so from your perspective Lutherans and Episcopalians are either lying or they are ignorant.
Now, how about from their perspective? What if they have studied the bible their whole life, and know their own hearts to be sincere and honest? What if, from their perspective, you are the one that is either lying or ignorant?
Same holy book, same sincerity, same faith.
Different conclusions.
And THAT is the point I’m trying to make.
Doesn’t matter if you’re discussing homosexuality, divorce, baptism, the nature of god, salvation, predestination, or pretty much any other biblical doctrine. If it was all crystal clear, black and white, with no room for differences in opinion, then everyone would agree and all these different Christian sects wouldn’t exist.
But believers do disagree, often vehemently, and not only on fringe doctrines but on core doctrines pertaining to the most critical aspects of their faith.
There is no objective standard for determining the truth. Everyone is convinced that he is honest, clear minded, and correct, and thus everyone else with another interpretation must either be ignorant or dishonest.
It’s easy to see the mote in your brother’s eye, while missing the beam in your own eye.
[quote]forlife wrote:
…
[/quote]
Ok, you can’t provide them. What else can be added?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
…
[/quote]
Ok, you can’t provide them. What else can be added?[/quote]
You continue to ignore my point.
You don’t get to set the rules on what the bible really says and what it doesn’t. Why should I follow your rules of interpretation over an Episcopalian or a Lutheran?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
…
[/quote]
Ok, you can’t provide them. What else can be added?[/quote]
You continue to ignore my point.
You don’t get to set the rules on what the bible really says and what it doesn’t. Why should I follow your rules of interpretation over an Episcopalian or a Lutheran?[/quote]
Because I had thought you were at least more honest in your agnosticism then they in their christian-window dressing spirituality. Perhaps I’ve erred. I suppose until this, I would’ve thought that while you may not be concerned with false teaching out of religious and spiritual concern, academically you’d take issue with what is clearly put false in their own holy scripture. I had no less expected you to take them to task, than I had imagined you’d take to task “Adultery is compatible with Christianity.” My fault there, I suppose.
[quote]
You don’t get to set the rules on what the bible really says and what it doesn’t. Why should I follow your rules of interpretation over an Episcopalian or a Lutheran? [/quote]
well, to be fair…
historically, the noble art of interpretation, exegesis, this very art we all use today to discern what a text say or doesn’t say… is born in catholic monasteries.
they (the catholics) have forged themselves the intellectual weapons you and me use against them.
so yes, historically, they (the catholics) have set the rules. Episcopalian and Lutheran interpretations are deviations from these rules.
historically and objectively.
That’s what you get when you insist to allow the free and personnal (ie : unruled) interpretations of the Bible. which was one of the main points of the Reformation.
sola scriptura litteralists on one hand, and “gay are biblically ok” liberals on the other hand.
two faces of the same coin : the rejection of traditionnal exegesis.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, don’t argue with me. Argue with the Episcopalians and Lutherans. I personally couldn’t care less what your holy book says, because I believe it was written by men, just like every other holy book on the planet.
Let’s cut to the chase. In your opinion:
How is it possible for Episcopalians and Lutherans to accept gays, including gay clergy, when they worship the same bible, have the same faith, and believe in the same Jesus as you?
Are they idiots?
Are they charlatans?
[/quote]
Liars, ignorant, or a mix of both. If their own holy scripture condemns it, and there’s not one example of condoning it, they’re either not honest, or grossly ignorant of what is supposed to be their own holy text. In fact, it would be better for them to have never claimed to be a way to Christ. They’ve now compounded the sin. I’ll explain.
- Homosexuality is a sin in scripture. Never condoned. Sin number 1.
- Sex is moral between man and wife, marriage. Whatever the state may or may not say in the future, Christianity has been given no authority to include man and man, or wife and wife. So, homosexuality is necessarily always sex outside of marriage, too.
- Relates to 1., homosexuality being condemned and never condoned within Christianity’s holy text. Saying otherwise, and finding followers, makes them guilty of leading others astray with false teachings. These are worse off than before they knew Christ. Check out 2 Peter 2 on false teachers and destruction.
[/quote]
Do you wear cotton?
Leviticus 19:19 "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
[/quote]
I think you’re confusing the Mosaic Law and the Moral Law. The difference between Catholics and other Christians is the Catholic Magisterium has authority from Jesus to teach and has assurance of right teaching.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, don’t argue with me. Argue with the Episcopalians and Lutherans. I personally couldn’t care less what your holy book says, because I believe it was written by men, just like every other holy book on the planet.
Let’s cut to the chase. In your opinion:
How is it possible for Episcopalians and Lutherans to accept gays, including gay clergy, when they worship the same bible, have the same faith, and believe in the same Jesus as you?
Are they idiots?
Are they charlatans?
[/quote]
Liars, ignorant, or a mix of both. If their own holy scripture condemns it, and there’s not one example of condoning it, they’re either not honest, or grossly ignorant of what is supposed to be their own holy text. In fact, it would be better for them to have never claimed to be a way to Christ. They’ve now compounded the sin. I’ll explain.
- Homosexuality is a sin in scripture. Never condoned. Sin number 1.
- Sex is moral between man and wife, marriage. Whatever the state may or may not say in the future, Christianity has been given no authority to include man and man, or wife and wife. So, homosexuality is necessarily always sex outside of marriage, too.
- Relates to 1., homosexuality being condemned and never condoned within Christianity’s holy text. Saying otherwise, and finding followers, makes them guilty of leading others astray with false teachings. These are worse off than before they knew Christ. Check out 2 Peter 2 on false teachers and destruction.
[/quote]
Do you wear cotton?
Leviticus 19:19 "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a sect out there that takes this passage literally and forbids its followers from wearing mixed-fibre clothing. They probably think you are also compounding sin.
My point? There’s a good chance there are Christian sects out there who see you as an ignorant liar just as much as you see Churches that accept homosexual marriage as ignorant liars.[/quote]
I won’t bother schooling you on scripture (the hebrew laws of custom and cleanliness didn’t carry over to the gentiles. You might try reading the epistles and acts). Show that I’m a liar on this topic we’ve been discussing. One verse from either new, or old, or both with homosexuality condoned. Heck, even in a semi-positive light. Just one. Don’t come back here without it. I can give you verses from old to new testament. From old to new covenant. Applying to the hebrew people AND the gentiles. One verse. Sometimes it best to keep silent and not risk looking like a fool. Remember, one verse.
[/quote]
Do these apply to gentiles?
Does your church allow you to divorce?
Mark 10:8, you �¢??are no longer two, but one flesh.�¢?? And, Mark 10:9 reads, �¢??What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.�¢??
Mark gets even more hardcore about it a few verses later, in Mark 10:11-12, �¢??And He said to them, �¢??Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.�¢??�¢??
What about allowing men who have been castrated into church?
Deuteronomy 23:1 reads (this is the God�¢??s Word translation, which spells it out better), �¢??A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord.�¢??
My point is not that the Bible condones homosexuality. My point is you and your church do things the bible condemns that would cause other sects to see you as a liar[/quote]
Catholics can’t divorce. And, your second one is a Mosaic Law.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, don’t argue with me. Argue with the Episcopalians and Lutherans. I personally couldn’t care less what your holy book says, because I believe it was written by men, just like every other holy book on the planet.
Let’s cut to the chase. In your opinion:
How is it possible for Episcopalians and Lutherans to accept gays, including gay clergy, when they worship the same bible, have the same faith, and believe in the same Jesus as you?
Are they idiots?
Are they charlatans?
[/quote]
Liars, ignorant, or a mix of both. If their own holy scripture condemns it, and there’s not one example of condoning it, they’re either not honest, or grossly ignorant of what is supposed to be their own holy text. In fact, it would be better for them to have never claimed to be a way to Christ. They’ve now compounded the sin. I’ll explain.
- Homosexuality is a sin in scripture. Never condoned. Sin number 1.
- Sex is moral between man and wife, marriage. Whatever the state may or may not say in the future, Christianity has been given no authority to include man and man, or wife and wife. So, homosexuality is necessarily always sex outside of marriage, too.
- Relates to 1., homosexuality being condemned and never condoned within Christianity’s holy text. Saying otherwise, and finding followers, makes them guilty of leading others astray with false teachings. These are worse off than before they knew Christ. Check out 2 Peter 2 on false teachers and destruction.
[/quote]
Do you wear cotton?
Leviticus 19:19 "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a sect out there that takes this passage literally and forbids its followers from wearing mixed-fibre clothing. They probably think you are also compounding sin.
My point? There’s a good chance there are Christian sects out there who see you as an ignorant liar just as much as you see Churches that accept homosexual marriage as ignorant liars.[/quote]
I won’t bother schooling you on scripture (the hebrew laws of custom and cleanliness didn’t carry over to the gentiles. You might try reading the epistles and acts). Show that I’m a liar on this topic we’ve been discussing. One verse from either new, or old, or both with homosexuality condoned. Heck, even in a semi-positive light. Just one. Don’t come back here without it. I can give you verses from old to new testament. From old to new covenant. Applying to the hebrew people AND the gentiles. One verse. Sometimes it best to keep silent and not risk looking like a fool. Remember, one verse.
[/quote]
Do these apply to gentiles?
Does your church allow you to divorce?
Mark 10:8, you �??�?�¢??are no longer two, but one flesh.�??�?�¢?? And, Mark 10:9 reads, �??�?�¢??What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.�??�?�¢??
Mark gets even more hardcore about it a few verses later, in Mark 10:11-12, �??�?�¢??And He said to them, �??�?�¢??Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.�??�?�¢??�??�?�¢??
What about allowing men who have been castrated into church?
Deuteronomy 23:1 reads (this is the God�??�?�¢??s Word translation, which spells it out better), �??�?�¢??A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord.�??�?�¢??
My point is not that the Bible condones homosexuality. My point is you and your church do things the bible condemns that would cause other sects to see you as a liar[/quote]
Catholics can’t divorce. And, your second one is a Mosaic Law.[/quote]
What happens if someone in a Catholic Church get legally divorced then legally remarries? Is their divorce and new marriage not recognized? Are Christians technically allowed to get divorced according to the Bible?
I’m no Bible scholar, but there are laws set out by the Bible Christians are supposed to follow but most Christian churches don’t bother enforcing right?
What about this one:
2 Corinthians 6:14
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
Is it a sin to marry a non believer?
Point is, if you’re going to run around calling other churches ignorant liars for not following a law written in the Bible, you damn well better follow EVERY law applicable to Christians at the Church you attend.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
…
[/quote]
Ok, you can’t provide them. What else can be added?[/quote]
You continue to ignore my point.
You don’t get to set the rules on what the bible really says and what it doesn’t. Why should I follow your rules of interpretation over an Episcopalian or a Lutheran?[/quote]
Because I had thought you were at least more honest in your agnosticism then they in their christian-window dressing spirituality. Perhaps I’ve erred. I suppose until this, I would’ve thought that while you may not be concerned with false teaching out of religious and spiritual concern, academically you’d take issue with what is clearly put false in their own holy scripture. I had no less expected you to take them to task, than I had imagined you’d take to task “Adultery is compatible with Christianity.” My fault there, I suppose.
[/quote]
You said earlier that you didn’t question their sincerity. Now you believe Lutherans and Episcopalians are outright dishonest?
I haven’t expressed an opinion on what the bible says about homosexuality, so I’m not sure why you’re questioning my own sincerity here. I’ve only told you what they believe, and for the specific purpose of illustrating that many doctrines in the bible which seem crystal clear to some are interpreted very differently by others.
The bible is a mirror, not a window. Sadly, it’s easy to see the truth of that statement for others, and very difficult to see the truth of that statement for your own beliefs.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You said earlier that you didn’t question their sincerity. Now you believe Lutherans and Episcopalians are outright dishonest?
[/quote]
I don’t question their sincerity…because it could be that that one is simply ignorant of his own holy scripture (doesn’t make him/her less culpable in this case) OR the individual is dishonest. I’m not here to discern between either the ignorant sincerity, or sincerely advanced dishonesty, of an anonymous individual. I’m not concerned with their sincerity as it doesn’t make the verses vanish.