Why is Fundamental Christians so down on Homosexuality?

[127Rockledge]

What's stated in the NT such as homosexualy.

What's stated in the NT, cool. So the OT has absolutely no bearing anymore, correct?

 

[GenemZ]

What's stated in the NT, cool. So the OT has absolutely no bearing anymore, correct?

Is your purpose to prove that homosexuality is not a sin?

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[cubanito]

I am a "soft" dispy, "hard" fundi, given so that y'all know where I'm coming from.

The laws from God to men change over time. At the beginning men were to be vegetarians and marry their sister. It is also fairly clear that monogamy was strongly endorsed (the first note of bigamy is accompanied by a boast of evil arrogance, the first patriarch that became a polygamist was Abraham, and he suffered for it).

Prior to Abraham there was no call for male circumcision. In the NT it is expressly repealed.

After the flood we get some Kosher dietary laws, though not all (no mention of salt or separation of dairy and meat). The Mosaic Covenant not only permitted but, in the case of the Levirate marriage, commanded polygamy.


The point is that there is a change, and this is clearly discussed throughout the NT.

Roughly speaking, there are 4 ways of handling this fact.

1- Deny the obvious and scream that it aint so. A lot of the posts here seem to reflect this.

2-Reference some central authority to interpret and even make new pronouncements. This is true of the RC (Roman Catholics), Mormons and at least some Eastern Orthodox.

3- Come up with a system, wholly foreign to Scripture, to classify the laws given by God as a-moral (unchanging) 2-civil (changeable by some political process) 3-ceremonial (changeable pretty much on a whim). This is Covenant Theology, which was initially found in the early Church, lost and recovered during the Reformation.
4- Dispensationalism (found in many flavors, from extremes that are clearly heretical, to "softer" forms such as I old). This is a very novel idea, really only developed in the 1800's. Dispys like me point to the fact that when one covenant ends, it ALL ends with it. Any new laws are re-stated by God through his new prophets. Thus dispys basically throw out the entire OT, including the ten commandments, and only hold to whatever laws are stated in the NT.

Dispys (position 4) can avoid most of the cafeteria Christianity of deciding which OT laws to hold and which to keep. We don't eat at that cafeteria at all. We eat at a completely new restaurant (the New Testament) were we do not get a choice. We must obey ALL the laws there. Among them is that homosexuality is wrong.

JR

 

[ReformedChapin]

Is your purpose to prove that homosexuality is not a sin?

In Christ, GeneZ​

​

I think that's obvious, not only that but his theology confuses me.

 

[hithesh]

Dispys (position 4) can avoid most of the cafeteria Christianity of deciding which OT laws to hold and which to keep. We don't eat at that cafeteria at all. We eat at a completely new restaurant (the New Testament) were we do not get a choice. We must obey ALL the laws there. Among them is that homosexuality is wrong.

Let's look at the phases of Christianity since birth to now. Not too long ago, many concepts of the OT were still followed: witches were burned to death, and so were apostates. At some point these things pass, and christians move way from the OT restaurant and dine only in the "NT" restaurant. What's occuring now, is that christians are starting to move away from the "NT" restaurant, to the "gospel" restaurant, but more importantly a shift away from Paul's doctrine.

Paul's doctrine has lived out it's time, just as the same as the doctrines of the OT.
Regardless of what one's opinion of the OT is, you're not going to hear many readings from Leviticus, in sunday services. So in truth, most christians have moved away from OT thinking, to NT thinking, regardless if they admit to this shift or not.

Currently Paul's doctrine is the most important Doctrine to Christianity today. You attend sunday service and see how often one reads from the gospels, compared to the Paul's letters, and you can understand this point. The problem with Paul's doctrine is, there are many parts that most christians don't follow any longer: woman no longer cover their hair in Church, women don't remain silent, nor do men feel it's unatural for to have long hair; these small shifts indicate that parts of Paul's doctrine are taken, to be Paul's cultural ideas, and not universal concepts that need to followed by all generation. But what needs to be realized, is, that if Paul can create cultural non moral rules, than he can also make cultural moral rules.

Paul didn't write his letters, with the 2000 years of social evolution in mind, in fact he felt the second coming was returning quite soon, in his life time perhaps, and that's the main reason he tells individuals such as slaves to remain in the state they are in now, because there is no point in fighting for freedom, when the coming of the kingdom is so near.

I for the life of me, cannot understand why Christians take paul's letters to be just as authoritize as Christ's teachings, particulary when Paul had little familiarity with Christ's teachings.

The shift from "NT" christianity ( or Pauline Christianity) will occur and is occuring because Christians are starting to views Paul's doctine, with the same scrutiny as they give to respected Theoligans of the day. We test the doctrine; we take some of his teachings to be wise, and we question, or dismiss other portions, as they no longer fit into what we understand now.

No christian is required to take Paul's doctrine as authoritize, only the gospels are required to be taken as authoritive. And much to the dismay of certain litarilist the shift of current and future generations, cannot be prevented, because when men, come and reason, with the Lord, they shift from the truth of other books, to the divine truth of the Gospels.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Let's look at the phases of Christianity since birth to know. Not too long ago, many concepts of the OT where still followed, witches where burned to death, and so where apostates. At some point these things pass, and christians move way from the OT, and dine only in the "NT" restaurant. What's occuring now, is the christians are starting to move away from the "NT" restaurant, to the "gospel" restaurant, but more importantly a shift away from Paul's doctrine.

Paul's doctrine has lived out it's time, just as the same as the Doctrines of all the OT. Regardless of what's ones opinion of the OT, you're not going to here much readings from Leviticus, in sunday services. So in truth, most christians have moved away from OT thinking, to NT thinking, regardless if they admit to this shift or not.

Currently Paul's doctrine is the most important Doctrine to Christianity today. You attend sunday service and see how often one reads from the gospels, compared to the Paul's letters, and you can understand this point. The problem with Paul's doctrine is, there are many parts that most christians don't follow any longer, woman don't cover their hair in Church, women don't remain silent, nor do men feel it's unatural of them to have long hair, these small shifts indicate that part's of Paul doctrine are taken, to be Paul's cultural ideas, and not universal concepts that need to followed by this generation. But what needs to be realized, is, that if Paul can create cultural non moral rules, than he can also make cultural moral rules. Paul didn't write his letters, with the 2000 years of social evolution in mind, in fact he felt the second coming was returning quite soon, in his life time perhaps, and that's the main reason he tell individuals such as slaves to remain in the state they are in now, because there is no point in fighting for freedom, when the coming of the kingdom is so near. I for the life of me, can't understand while Christians take paul's letters to be just as authoritize as Christ's teachings, particulary when Paul had little familiarity with Christ's teachings. The shift from "NT" christianity ( or Pauline Christianity) will occur and is occuring because Christians are starting to views Paul's doctine, with the same scrutiny the provide to respected Theoligans of the day, we take some of his teachings as wise, and we question, or dismiss other portion, as they know longer fit into what we understand know. No christian is required to take, Paul's doctrine as authoritize, only the gospels are required to be taken as authoritive. And much to the dismay of certain litarilist the shift of current and future generations, can not be prevented, because when men come and reason, with the Lord, they shift from the truth of other books, to the divine truth of the Gospels.

Oh postmodern theology, YUM. LOL

I guess we are closer to the end of day than I thought, apostacy is nice.

 

[intricatic]

Let's look at the phases of Christianity since birth to now. Not too long ago, many concepts of the OT were still followed: witches were burned to death, and so were apostates. At some point these things pass, and christians move way from the OT restaurant and dine only in the "NT" restaurant. What's occuring now, is that christians are starting to move away from the "NT" restaurant, to the "gospel" restaurant, but more importantly a shift away from Paul's doctrine.

Paul's doctrine has lived out it's time, just as the same as the doctrines of the OT.
Regardless of what one's opinion of the OT is, you're not going to hear many readings from Leviticus, in sunday services. So in truth, most christians have moved away from OT thinking, to NT thinking, regardless if they admit to this shift or not.

Currently Paul's doctrine is the most important Doctrine to Christianity today. You attend sunday service and see how often one reads from the gospels, compared to the Paul's letters, and you can understand this point. The problem with Paul's doctrine is, there are many parts that most christians don't follow any longer: woman no longer cover their hair in Church, women don't remain silent, nor do men feel it's unatural for to have long hair; these small shifts indicate that parts of Paul's doctrine are taken, to be Paul's cultural ideas, and not universal concepts that need to followed by all generation. But what needs to be realized, is, that if Paul can create cultural non moral rules, than he can also make cultural moral rules.

Paul didn't write his letters, with the 2000 years of social evolution in mind, in fact he felt the second coming was returning quite soon, in his life time perhaps, and that's the main reason he tells individuals such as slaves to remain in the state they are in now, because there is no point in fighting for freedom, when the coming of the kingdom is so near.

I for the life of me, cannot understand why Christians take paul's letters to be just as authoritize as Christ's teachings, particulary when Paul had little familiarity with Christ's teachings.

The shift from "NT" christianity ( or Pauline Christianity) will occur and is occuring because Christians are starting to views Paul's doctine, with the same scrutiny as they give to respected Theoligans of the day. We test the doctrine; we take some of his teachings to be wise, and we question, or dismiss other portions, as they no longer fit into what we understand now.

No christian is required to take Paul's doctrine as authoritize, only the gospels are required to be taken as authoritive. And much to the dismay of certain litarilist the shift of current and future generations, cannot be prevented, because when men, come and reason, with the Lord, they shift from the truth of other books, to the divine truth of the Gospels.

Do you have sources for your claims, or are they just opinion?

Nobody needs prevent anything in the world. Even in the Early Church they had the Gnostics and pagans at all corners trying to infiltrate and corrupt. It's nothing new. It does, however, make me wonder why I even bother dealing with most people in society when they're so stubbornly set on having their own way.

 

[JacobHall86]

Let's look at the phases of Christianity since birth to now. Not too long ago, many concepts of the OT were still followed: witches were burned to death, and so were apostates. At some point these things pass, and christians move way from the OT restaurant and dine only in the "NT" restaurant. What's occuring now, is that christians are starting to move away from the "NT" restaurant, to the "gospel" restaurant, but more importantly a shift away from Paul's doctrine.

Paul's doctrine has lived out it's time, just as the same as the doctrines of the OT.
Regardless of what one's opinion of the OT is, you're not going to hear many readings from Leviticus, in sunday services. So in truth, most christians have moved away from OT thinking, to NT thinking, regardless if they admit to this shift or not.

Currently Paul's doctrine is the most important Doctrine to Christianity today. You attend sunday service and see how often one reads from the gospels, compared to the Paul's letters, and you can understand this point. The problem with Paul's doctrine is, there are many parts that most christians don't follow any longer: woman no longer cover their hair in Church, women don't remain silent, nor do men feel it's unatural for to have long hair; these small shifts indicate that parts of Paul's doctrine are taken, to be Paul's cultural ideas, and not universal concepts that need to followed by all generation. But what needs to be realized, is, that if Paul can create cultural non moral rules, than he can also make cultural moral rules.

Paul didn't write his letters, with the 2000 years of social evolution in mind, in fact he felt the second coming was returning quite soon, in his life time perhaps, and that's the main reason he tells individuals such as slaves to remain in the state they are in now, because there is no point in fighting for freedom, when the coming of the kingdom is so near.

I for the life of me, cannot understand why Christians take paul's letters to be just as authoritize as Christ's teachings, particulary when Paul had little familiarity with Christ's teachings.

The shift from "NT" christianity ( or Pauline Christianity) will occur and is occuring because Christians are starting to views Paul's doctine, with the same scrutiny as they give to respected Theoligans of the day. We test the doctrine; we take some of his teachings to be wise, and we question, or dismiss other portions, as they no longer fit into what we understand now.

No christian is required to take Paul's doctrine as authoritize, only the gospels are required to be taken as authoritive. And much to the dismay of certain litarilist the shift of current and future generations, cannot be prevented, because when men, come and reason, with the Lord, they shift from the truth of other books, to the divine truth of the Gospels.

That was like reading a biggulp of post modern crap. Take your heresy somewhere else.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

That was like reading a biggulp of post modern crap. Take your heresy somewhere else.

Could you please tell us all the reason why certain of Paul's letters are included in the canon while others are not? Could you further explain the precise reasoning that led to the canon being set as it is, including some early Christian's writings and not others? Could you also please apologize for being so rude? There are a few things that you learn with age and (apparently) my extra 4 years have taught me that you don't catch too many flies with vineger.

Also, if you don't know the answers to the questions I asked, just admit it, there are worse things than not knowing all the answers, namely pretending like you do.

 

[TracerBullet]

So.... culture changes, therefore the OT is no longer applicable? I think you just completely lost me. Sorry, I have to follow what makes sense and I can't make heads or tails of a reading of the Bible like this.

Do you personally follow all the laws of the old testament? Or do you find some of those laws no longer applicable?

 

[hithesh]

Nobody needs prevent anything in the world. Even in the Early Church they had the Gnostics and pagans at all corners trying to infiltrate and corrupt.

Yes, and in most of these cases a few people needed to be killed, and a few books burned, to maintain the NT in it's current form. See most Christians do not know much about their history, and that is because most Churches realize that teaching the history of the formation of the word of God, (particulary the NT), leads parishoners to a bit of doubt.

The thing is, what the church refuses to provide (to insure seats are filled), the secular world gives, with courses such as "compartive religion", and etc.., as a requirment for most college students.

Such courses and such thinking, lead believers to questions the "divine" in their "divine" book. Unfortuanetly today's churches cannot censor ideas, they do not approve of.

And since they cannot, many Churches try to find ways to fight these new ideas, with nonsensical reasoning, that sounds good, but is incapable of being understood.

To give you an example of what I am speaking of, let's look at passages that speak of water above the heavens such as:

"All you waters above the heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all forever." Daniel 3:60, or the passages in Genesis creation that speak of God separting the water above from the water below.

Now, the most logical explanation as to why someone writes of water above the heavens, is that they see rain, and they are unaware of Bergeron process, so instead of knowing that rain forms from the water below, they believed a large pool of water lives above, that sprinkles water on us below.

Now the literalist, will try to form another explantion of how they derived these passages, (perhaps spirtual water above) but what happens in the process is that they tie things in so poorly, that their theory, starts to sound as cohesive as Ted Haggard's confession.

The sad thing is that these literalist, sell these concepts to children, who have questions, and then they assume the children understood, when in fact they are more confused than ever. and it is the unbelievers who make sense of it all for them. It's a sad day, when unbelievers are teachings believers about the bible, because the church does not know how to.

As an individual who has sat in these forums for sometime, I can honestly say the logic used by individuals trying to connect all portions of the bible, is weak. You cannot connect it in a truly cohesive way, unless you admit to cultural influences, and the limits of human thought at particular time.

In the end what you have, is a very human bible, filled with the thoughts of men defining God. And what the literalist worries about, is that if these sorts of ideas (postmodern ideas, as defined by mr. Newguy) invade the church, then many will lose belief in God, what they don't realize is that, it's the refusal to understand these new ideas, that leads many to disbelief.

And of course many don't seem to care about these loses, as long as they are guarnteed a seat in heaven they can always smile, and rejoice in God. And the men who fall, give them more reason, to rejoice, because they remind them, of how righteous they are.

Better them than me right?

If only my heart would allow me to do the same,
then I would have little reason to speak here,
and offend a few with "post-modern" ideas.

 

[JacobHall86]

Could you please tell us all the reason why certain of Paul's letters are included in the canon while others are not? Could you further explain the precise reasoning that led to the canon being set as it is, including some early Christian's writings and not others? Could you also please apologize for being so rude? There are a few things that you learn with age and (apparently) my extra 4 years have taught me that you don't catch too many flies with vineger.

Also, if you don't know the answers to the questions I asked, just admit it, there are worse things than not knowing all the answers, namely pretending like you do.

We arent certain Paul authored some of them, or we simply did not have the texts needed to cannonize them. Alot of the "writings" were not from the apostles or people who had experienced what they wrote, they signed on names of hte apostles to get their ideas out there. Gospel of Judas anyone?

No. And your four years mean nothing.

I didnt even read your post, so I dont know what questions you had, reference post that would be nice. And your last sentence was pretty rude, so you shouldnt lecture people on rudeness.

 

[savedandhappy1]

All I see here is more and more people trying to change the Word of God, and make it say what they need it to say.

Do you not think that God is able to have taken out the parts of the Bible that weren't inspired by Him? Do you really think He would have let the Bible stand as it is, if they weren't His words? You keep mentioning the Gospels, so where in the gospels does it say that man should be with man and woman with woman? Why would God change to that way of thinking, is He trying to control the population explosion?

I am not surprised by any of this the Word says these things will happen in the last days, and we sure are in them.

 

[intricatic]

Yes, and in most of these cases a few people needed to be killed, and a few books burned, to maintain the NT in it's current form. See most Christians do not know much about their history, and that is because most Churches realize that teaching the history of the formation of the word of God, (particulary the NT), leads parishoners to a bit of doubt.

The thing is, what the church refuses to provide (to insure seats are filled), the secular world gives, with courses such as "compartive religion", and etc.., as a requirment for most college students.

Such courses and such thinking, lead believers to questions the "divine" in their "divine" book. Unfortuanetly today's churches cannot censor ideas, they do not approve of.

And since they cannot, many Churches try to find ways to fight these new ideas, with nonsensical reasoning, that sounds good, but is incapable of being understood.

To give you an example of what I am speaking of, let's look at passages that speak of water above the heavens such as:

"All you waters above the heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all forever." Daniel 3:60, or the passages in Genesis creation that speak of God separting the water above from the water below.

Now, the most logical explanation as to why someone writes of water above the heavens, is that they see rain, and they are unaware of Bergeron process, so instead of knowing that rain forms from the water below, they believed a large pool of water lives above, that sprinkles water on us below.

Now the literalist, will try to form another explantion of how they derived these passages, (perhaps spirtual water above) but what happens in the process is that they tie things in so poorly, that their theory, starts to sound as cohesive as Ted Haggard's confession.

The sad thing is that these literalist, sell these concepts to children, who have questions, and then they assume the children understood, when in fact they are more confused than ever. and it is the unbelievers who make sense of it all for them. It's a sad day, when unbelievers are teachings believers about the bible, because the church does not know how to.

As an individual who has sat in these forums for sometime, I can honestly say the logic used by individuals trying to connect all portions of the bible, is weak. You cannot connect it in a truly cohesive way, unless you admit to cultural influences, and the limits of human thought at particular time.

In the end what you have, is a very human bible, filled with the thoughts of men defining God. And what the literalist worries about, is that if these sorts of ideas (postmodern ideas, as defined by mr. Newguy) invade the church, then many will lose belief in God, what they don't realize is that, it's the refusal to understand these new ideas, that leads many to disbelief.

And of course many don't seem to care about these loses, as long as they are guarnteed a seat in heaven they can always smile, and rejoice in God. And the men who fall, give them more reason, to rejoice, because they remind them, of how righteous they are.

Better them than me right?

If only my heart would allow me to do the same,
then I would have little reason to speak here,
and offend a few with "post-modern" ideas.

I honestly have no idea what you're saying in this thread. I disagree entirely with your reasoning regarding an interpretation of a consistent Biblical reading. I found it incredibly easy, but over time it grew into a further depth - but that's mostly the result of disposing of my own presuppositions regarding the Bible and letting axioms be formed from the reading itself. There is a good point to be made in looking at the Hebrew culture as different from our own, but it requires an understanding that our perception of the world is bound to be different, and an interpretation more difficult to come to without a lot of dedication and thought.

But no, I find that the postmodern view destroys any sanity in following Christ, but this is just my perspective of it. If there is no reason to take the Bible as the word of God, then why believe the Gospels are true? The only consistent reasoning anyone would be able to provide for this is that there is no reasoning to think such a thing. Undermining the foundations of the gospel effectively destroys the gospel itself, which in turn destroys Christianity. The basic difference in propositional beginings in this train of thought isn't that man was existentially responsible for the creation of the Bible, but that God spoke to man throughout the history of mankind, and that these things have been effectively communicated to us through the Bible. But of course, man's influence is still there, but to what end? Does it lead to corruption - and if so, does this mean man is ultimately corrupt and completely incapable of enacting God's will (obviously, this only can be the case if God does not and has not communicated with mankind through these people)? If so, why believe the gospel is true?

The other difference is in the existential perspective of God's sovereignty. There is no reconciling a God who created the entire universe with a perspective that we are utterly alone, that mankind is all there is that we can rely on. It's subversive and difficult to see, because while someone who claims to existential theology can use words such as "God" and "Love", these things really don't have a meaning because the Bible is the product of human hands alone, and man needs to work steadily to bring about His kingdom - as if we have power over the matter at all.

 

[hithesh]

Do you not think that God is able to have taken out the parts of the Bible that weren't inspired by Him? Do you really think He would have let the Bible stand as it is, if they weren't His words?

Why did god allow a council to decide which Books belong in the NT? Why does he give us no warning that a man who saw him in a vision, is going to fill in the blanks? Why does he tell us, that he's going to return, and tell us more about his second Coming, in much more brutal way, then what he spoke of in the gospels? He only warned of one thing, false christ, and false teachings, never did he say new teachings, outside of what he spoke here, are going to arise, and we are to believe them.

If you were to read the bible from the OT, to the Gospels, you would understand perfectly what god's true plan is. The books after the gospels (particulary Paul's and the pseudo John's Apocalypse), are the plan we desired, are the plan's of God we wanted, not the ones that He wanted.

God allowed men (The council of Niccea) to decide which books get entered into the Cannon, by the popular demand of the people. It is men who decided to enter the book of revelation into the cannon, though many even in the council opposed it's entry. It's men who decided to place Paul's letters in the NT, and not God. Now, you ask why god would allow a complelation of books that he did not favor?

Because if he "pulled up the weeds he would have uprooted the wheat along with them.".

What's occuring now, is the same thing that occured in the 1st century, Christians are questioning the old Books, they are not adding new books to it, but questing the books that are already there, to see if any tares have been passed on since conception, by the faulty hands of men.

As each generation comes, they go through different stages of birth, they form and shake free of certain shackles to understand the truth in a bit better.

The gospels have always been a hidden, and secretive message, and this is plain to see. What men did not realize, is that they are secretive for a reason, because the simple parts can be understood universally, but the complex, more figurative parts can only be understood by later generations, whose hearts and wisdom grows to understand a further extent of the truth.

God does not change, but it's our understanding of him that changes. The further we approach the end, the more awesome he becomes, but many do not realize this, even when the truth is abudant in front of their eyes.

When the gospels are truly understand, it will shine like diamonds, in the mud, because when the gospels are understand void of the filtaration of external understandings provided by men of old, and those who carried the torch of the men of old, they are an entirely different message, and a god so true to all human nature, that is known by the hearts of everyone.

There is this thing, that very few here know. You see, many unbelievers admire christ, but what the believer doesn't get, is that the Christ they admire, is much different than the one we portray.

What the believer does not understand, is that it has always been the unbelievers who understand the nature of our savior, since the begining, and not us the orthodox. When we learn from them who Christ really is, and not when they learn from us, is when we start to understand the gospels void of tares.

 

[HeavenzAngel]

All I see here is more and more people trying to change the Word of God, and make it say what they need it to say.

Do you not think that God is able to have taken out the parts of the Bible that weren't inspired by Him? Do you really think He would have let the Bible stand as it is, if they weren't His words? You keep mentioning the Gospels, so where in the gospels does it say that man should be with man and woman with woman? Why would God change to that way of thinking, is He trying to control the population explosion?

I am not surprised by any of this the Word says these things will happen in the last days, and we sure are in them.

God's words are different for every person, no one is trying to change the bible or GOD.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

We arent certain Paul authored some of them, or we simply did not have the texts needed to cannonize them. Alot of the "writings" were not from the apostles or people who had experienced what they wrote, they signed on names of hte apostles to get their ideas out there. Gospel of Judas anyone?

No. And your four years mean nothing.

I didnt even read your post, so I dont know what questions you had, reference post that would be nice. And your last sentence was pretty rude, so you shouldnt lecture people on rudeness.

My last sentence was needling, not rude. When you dismiss someone's carefully written argument as 'a biggulp of postmodern crap' and proceed to call it heresy, it is safe to assume that you have crossed the border into rude-ville.

You also misunderstood my post fairly significantly which I will now correct. When in it I asked you to admit if you did not know the answer's to the questions I had asked, I was referring to the series of questions that opened the post. One thing that I have gained in my 4 years is a circumspection when interpreting the written word. Normally, I find, it is best to conclude modestly and ask questions rather than conclude decisively and attack. Perhaps as you age you might even see the error of your motto: "strike first, strike hard, no mercy".

All things are possible with God, after all.

 

[JacobHall86]

My last sentence was needling, not rude. When you dismiss someone's carefully written argument as 'a biggulp of postmodern crap' and proceed to call it heresy, it is safe to assume that you have crossed the border into rude-ville.

You also misunderstood my post fairly significantly which I will now correct. When in it I asked you to admit if you did not know the answer's to the questions I had asked, I was referring to the series of questions that opened the post. One thing that I have gained in my 4 years is a circumspection when interpreting the written word. Normally, I find, it is best to conclude modestly and ask questions rather than conclude decisively and attack. Perhaps as you age you might even see the error of your motto: "strike first, strike hard, no mercy".

All things are possible with God, after all.

Its from the Karate Kid. Dont worry about my avatar, and thats not my motto, I just like the movie.

And I dont care how well something is written, post modern heresy is post modern heresy whether it comes from a 15 year old from compton or a professer at harvard.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Its from the Karate Kid. Dont worry about my avatar, and thats not my motto, I just like the movie.

And I dont care how well something is written, post modern heresy is post modern heresy whether it comes from a 15 year old from compton or a professer at harvard.

You see? It is really quite easy to compose calmly and without recourse to such florid descriptions as 'a biggulp of postmodern crap'. Now all you have to do is respond to his extensive argument with an argument of your own rather than a bald faced assertion and you'll be in business.

 

[lilymarie]

Hithesh, Daniel 3:60 does not say the following BECAUSE there is NO Daniel 3:60 as you posted in your post above. Have you made a mistake, or are you posting from websites without checking the scriptures, which many people do on Christian websites?

Your quoted scripture:

by hithesh...

All you waters above the heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all forever." Daniel 3:60, or the passages in Genesis creation that speak of God separting the water above from the water below.