False teachers

[Leevo]

This seems to be the idea.

And then, sometimes, I give them the benefit of the doubt and think "Doesn't everyone do this, though? That's what it means to have an opinion and think that someone else is wrong." But no, everyone doesn't think this. Most people accept that they might be wrong, that someone else might know better, and that we learn all throughout our lifetimes. Not everyone considers themselves to be objectively right on a subjective matter.

There are many false teachers out there I am sure. The Bible says there will be many. I have never accused someone of this before. I don't understand the disagreement here unless the people arguing against me disregard scripture? It is too clear for this to be a debate among us Christians. For these pastors to be preaching that this is okay and practicing it as well is contrary to scripture. It says it is sin clear as day. We should not follow those that preach and practice that sin is okay. We all sin, but true repentant Christians would attempt to turn away from and give up those sins.

 

[Leevo]

If this is true, then why is it that Christianity as a whole has veered away from so many scriptural laws and edicts in the bible? Why do Christians cherry pick the biblical passages they adhere to while disregarding the ones they now consider obsolete?

We are free from the Jewish law first off. However sin is still sin. That much hasn't changed, the difference now is that we can be saved from these so long as we turn from them and put our faith in Christ.

 

[Leevo]

Cherry picking... To open the Bible, to pick out a verse, not at random but with a mind to be impressive or significant, such as Matthew 24:15, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand" And then to consider the whole chapter, even the context, is it irrelevant here? Why does the gospel make a reference to the prophet Daniel at the same time as offering a warning against false prophets, even false Christs, and their ability to deceive?

I think this idea of Christian Hate, it's like those who go to the protests with the signs that say "God Hates [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" or whatever, the kind of stuff in the news and it's used to build a straw-man argument, a logical fallacy, that we're all somehow hate-fueled monsters for simply being Christians. That's the political system, though. Truth is anathema to the politics of the day, like a sign of the times, put reality aside to feed the beast of democracy. Trying to explain the difference between love and lust, and in some ways this is where Buddhism and Christianity have some overlapping knowledge and wisdom, the intellect must appeal to the Spirit to overrule the cravings and desires of the flesh.

So, no, I disagree with the Scripture vs. Spiritual dialectics for the same reason I do not believe that Jesus Christ is Beelzebub, that the books of the Bible are inspired by God, they are spiritual, however I do agree it's wrong to use Christianity as a tool of hate.

I am slightly confused by your final statement there. Do you disagree the Bible is inspired by God or no? I agree 100% that Christianity is supposed to preach love, but not at the expense of accepting and endorsing sin.

 

[BabylonWeary]

I am slightly confused by your final statement there. Do you disagree the Bible is inspired by God or no? I agree 100% that Christianity is supposed to preach love, but not at the expense of accepting and endorsing sin.

I believe the Bible. It begins with Moses and the Prophets and all the way to the gospels and Jesus Christ, and all of it a blessing from God. It's better to acknowledge that sins are sins, but then it's let he who is without sin cast the first stone, so it's just as important to trust God is a better judge. The churches have already changed things around so much, so beyond that I don't know the answer. Maybe there's a spirit of Antichrist that goes down the list of all the commandments, even starting with Genesis 1:28, trying to find a way to corrupt or pervert each one of them by some kind of political coercion, but that is speculation. What I know for certain is that the political system ought to stop pushing these kinds of issues, that Christians need to be the lights to lead people away from sins and not the opposite even as we struggle ourselves.

 

[dgiharris]

We are free from the Jewish law first off. However sin is still sin. That much hasn't changed, the difference now is that we can be saved from these so long as we turn from them and put our faith in Christ.

If we are "free" from Jewish law, why then do so many Christians quote Old Testament?

You can't have a discussion on homosexuality without dozens of Old Testaments quotes being flung around.

Truth is, whenever something from the Old Testament supports a Christian's viewpoint, they are quick to quote it. Whenever you bring up something from the Old Testament that refutes their argument, NOW all of a sudden the Old Testament is not relevant.

Convenient how that seems to happen all the time...

 

[Leevo]

If we are "free" from Jewish law, why then do so many Christians quote Old Testament?

You can't have a discussion on homosexuality without dozens of Old Testaments quotes being flung around.

Truth is, whenever something from the Old Testament supports a Christian's viewpoint, they are quick to quote it. Whenever you bring up something from the Old Testament that refutes their argument, NOW all of a sudden the Old Testament is not relevant.

Convenient how that seems to happen all the time...

Truth is this. The LAW is not relevant. SIN is. We are free from the law in Jesus and because of this we do not have to follow the Law, for example wearing different fabrics. Our sins are payed for in Jesus. However, if we continue in them without being born-again, then we are not saved through Jesus. This is the issue, not the Law. It is NOT a matter of when it is convenient for Christians and people misinterpreting the Law of Moses and twisting it so that it seems like Christians only use what they please when it suits them, isn't correct. Homosexuality is considered sin, and is not a piece of the Law, like not wearing mixed fabrics is.

 

[quatona]

Homosexuality is considered sin, and is not a piece of the Law, like not wearing mixed fabrics is.

Could you explain how you arrived at this conclusion?

 

[Leevo]

Could you explain how you arrived at this conclusion?

To start off, is the multitude of verses condemning this even in the New Testament where Paul explains we are no longer part of the Law. Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9 Romans 1:26-27 .The simplest reasoning is the fact that it falls under the adultery category. The 10 Commandments still apply to us today, because those are sins and Jesus specifically commanded us to follow them. Homosexuality would in fact fall under the adultery one, if performed outside of marriage. As we know, the Bible explains that God made us male and female and that is how he intends marriage to be, so there is no such thing as a "gay marriage," for God. Therefore because they aren't married according to the way God willed it, they are still considered adulterers.

Please understand, I am not trying to sound like a bigot. It just baffles me that some Pastors could clearly ignore what the Bible says about this. It is clear on the issue. Why would they toss this out under the guise of "love" because condoning and endorsing sin is not love.

 

[quatona]

To start off, is the multitude of verses condemning this even in the New Testament where Paul explains we are no longer part of the Law. Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9 Romans 1:26-27 .The simplest reasoning is the fact that it falls under the adultery category. The 10 Commandments still apply to us today, because those are sins and Jesus specifically commanded us to follow them. Homosexuality would in fact fall under the adultery one, if performed outside of marriage. As we know, the Bible explains that God made us male and female and that is how he intends marriage to be, so there is no such thing as a "gay marriage," for God. Therefore because they aren't married according to the way God willed it, they are still considered adulterers.

That´s quite an interpretive effort required for this conclusion - a lot that could be discussed or interpreted otherwise.
So, while you are of course entitled to your interpretation, it´s not like it´s clearly stated in the bible.

Please understand, I am not trying to sound like a bigot. It just baffles me that some Pastors could clearly ignore what the Bible says about this.

More like what you understand the bible to say about this.

It is clear on the issue.

No, it isn´t.

 

[TheBarrd]

Either you believe in God, or you do not believe in God.
Either the Bible is true, or it is not true.
If you believe in God and in His Word, then you know that homosexuality is an abomination before Him, and that those who do such things are not going to inherit the Kingdom of God, because this is what God has said in His Word.

You wouldn't expect a history teacher to decide that he/she doesn't like, say, the Civil War, so that teacher will just edit that part of history out of the book.
Or a science teacher to decide that they don't like to teach about cell division, so let's just skip that chapter.
We'd fire these teachers, wouldn't we? We'd want them to teach everything that is written in that textbook. We are not interested in your personal opinions, we want you to teach the truth to your classes.

This is sort of the same thing. Teach what is written in the Book.

 

[DavidAReed]

It is the risen Christ who has the last word about who is or is not a false teacher in the Church -- not any of us. And he addressed two churches in Revelation (Apocalypse) chapter 2, condemning the individuals in those churches who taught others to practice "sexual immorality" by saying that such sin was acceptable. In fact, he condemned the church at Thyatira because they "tolerated that woman Jezebel" in their midst.

David

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Homosexuality would in fact fall under the adultery one, if performed outside of marriage. As we know, the Bible explains that God made us male and female and that is how he intends marriage to be, so there is no such thing as a "gay marriage," for God. Therefore because they aren't married according to the way God willed it, they are still considered adulterers.

As I understand it, adultery occurs when someone who is married has sex with someone other than their marriage partner. If neither party is married, I don't see how it can be called adultery, regardless of their respective sexes.

In general, it seems to me that believers will interpret the writings and teachings of their religion according to their internal moral compass, their conscience, which depends mainly on the environment they become socialised in (parents, teachers, friends, peer group, personal experiences, etc). Similarly, it's been shown that people's views and beliefs about God reflect their personal views and beliefs (rather than vice-versa), and if their personal views change, their views of God will also change (see Believers’ estimates of God’s beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people’s beliefs).

In my view this neatly sidesteps the Euthyphro Dilemma (is something good and just because God wills it or does God will it because it is good and just?) by offering a third option - interpreting Gods will according to one's subjective moral compass. YMMV.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

If we are "free" from Jewish law, why then do so many Christians quote Old Testament?

You can't have a discussion on homosexuality without dozens of Old Testaments quotes being flung around.

Truth is, whenever something from the Old Testament supports a Christian's viewpoint, they are quick to quote it. Whenever you bring up something from the Old Testament that refutes their argument, NOW all of a sudden the Old Testament is not relevant.

Convenient how that seems to happen all the time...

Like x ∞

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Could you explain how you arrived at this conclusion?

Some call it cherry picking.

 

[TheBarrd]

As I understand it, adultery occurs when someone who is married has sex with someone other than their marriage partner. If neither party is married, I don't see how it can be called adultery, regardless of their respective sexes.

In general, it seems to me that believers will interpret the writings and teachings of their religion according to their internal moral compass, their conscience, which depends mainly on the environment they become socialised in (parents, teachers, friends, peer group, personal experiences, etc). Similarly, it's been shown that people's views and beliefs about God reflect their personal views and beliefs (rather than vice-versa), and if their personal views change, their views of God will also change (see Believers’ estimates of God’s beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people’s beliefs).

In my view this neatly sidesteps the Euthyphro Dilemma (is something good and just because God wills it or does God will it because it is good and just?) by offering a third option - interpreting Gods will according to one's subjective moral compass. YMMV.

Sure, there will always be folks who pick and choose what they will take from the Bible.
There will be people who don't even bother to read all of it.
There will be people who twist it around to mean something it never meant at all.

Do those folks actually believe in God?
I wonder....

 

[TheBarrd]

It is the risen Christ who has the last word about who is or is not a false teacher in the Church -- not any of us. And he addressed two churches in Revelation (Apocalypse) chapter 2, condemning the individuals in those churches who taught others to practice "sexual immorality" by saying that such sin was acceptable. In fact, he condemned the church at Thyatira because they "tolerated that woman Jezebel" in their midst.

David

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do those folks actually believe in God?
I wonder....

Well, they say they do... how else can one tell?

This seems to be straying towards the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy...

 

[TheBarrd]

Well, they say they do... how else can one tell?

This seems to be straying towards the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy...

I never understood that..."No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Either one is Scottish, or they aren't. What is the "fallacy" then?

 

[ken777]

If we are "free" from Jewish law, why then do so many Christians quote Old Testament?

You can't have a discussion on homosexuality without dozens of Old Testaments quotes being flung around.

Truth is, whenever something from the Old Testament supports a Christian's viewpoint, they are quick to quote it. Whenever you bring up something from the Old Testament that refutes their argument, NOW all of a sudden the Old Testament is not relevant.

Convenient how that seems to happen all the time...

Unless you can understand why this is so you can have no meaningful dialogue with a Biblical Christian. Many OT moral laws were incorporated into Christianity while the civil & ceremonial laws were abolished.

.

 

[Cearbhall]

It is too clear for this to be a debate among us Christians.

Well it is a debate among Christians, so obviously there are those who don't think it's so clear. That's what makes it subjective.

For these pastors to be preaching that this is okay and practicing it as well is contrary to scripture.

Remember that different groups of Christians take different approaches to the Bible. Not everyone says "That's that" when looking at scripture. Some think that the humans who wrote it were promoting their own culture in some parts rather than God's word. Christianity is a very diverse belief system.