Is it possible that conservatives really don't know much about the Bible...

[CaDan]

Really? Then how did you miss Gen. 19:4-5? . . .
4 "Now before they [the two angels that came to Sodom in verse 1] lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter , surrounded the house.
5 And they [the men of Sodom described in verse 4] called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." (NKJV- emphasis mine)

What was the population of Sodom? A thousand? Ten thousand? It beggars belief that all these evil men want to simply know the two strangers. They don't want to seduce them, they don't want to go out dancing with them, they don't want to have a relationship with them. They want to have a violent gang bang or an initiation / power ritual.

If you can't see that, girlfriend, you can talk to the hand.

 

[Abiel]

Okay, so I think we can see that on this issue, both liberals and conservatives really do know a lot about the bible.
What about love? Why not have a debate to find out whether liberals or conservatives know the most about agape in scripture?

 

[seebs]

The amount of prooftexting going on on one side of this discussion is truly amazing.

 

[CaDan]

The amount of prooftexting going on on one side of this discussion is truly amazing.

Why bother thinkin' when you can cut and paste from your Bible study?

Chocolate or vanilla? We're fresh out of strawberry. Sorry.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Really? Then how did you miss Gen. 19:4-5? . . .
4 "Now before they [the two angels that came to Sodom in verse 1] lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter , surrounded the house.
5 And they [the men of Sodom described in verse 4] called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." (NKJV- emphasis mine)

What was the population of Sodom? A thousand? Ten thousand? It beggars belief that all these evil men want to simply know the two strangers. They don't want to seduce them, they don't want to go out dancing with them, they don't want to have a relationship with them. They want to have a violent gang bang or an initiation / power ritual.

If you can't see that, girlfriend, you can talk to the hand.

You know, why don't you ask the LORD about the population of Sodom? Oh, and be sure to let Him know that you don't believe His evaluation of the situation. Come to think of it, he already knows (Heb. 4:13). And, he has forewarned about the consequences of those who mock Him (Gal. 6:7).

Concerning the girlfriend remark:
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes." (Prov. 26:4-5 - NKJV)

Concerning the remark about the hand:
"He who sends a message by the hand of a fool cuts off his own feet and drinks violence." (Prov. 26:6)

 

[- DRA -]

Okay, so I think we can see that on this issue, both liberals and conservatives really do know a lot about the bible.
What about love? Why not have a debate to find out whether liberals or conservatives know the most about agape in scripture?

There is one aspect of love that cannot be overlooked:
Jesus said, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word" . . . (John 14:23a).

 

[Dale]

UberLutheran:
<< Is it possible that conservatives really don't know much about the Bible..>>
It would be difficult to exaggerate what conservatives don't know about the Bible. Just look at the posts on the Creation vs. Evolution board. Creationists assume that God has a physical body and made Adam in his own physical image. Yet the most basic belief of Judaism is that God is incorporeal, a spirit, not needing a physical body.
*
I live in an area with lots of religious conservatives. Someone wrote a letter to the editor saying that lip service to the Gospel is enough. All we have to do is give lip service to the Christian God and He will bless our country. I felt impelled to do a reply where I quoted four verses to the contrary--lip service is not enough. (Now if I had some reason to believe my reply was understood!)

 

[Perceivence]

I'm confused.

Why do some bibles translate Jude 7 as just "sexual immorality" or something along those lines?

Why are people saying that "strange flesh" can only be a reference to the people going after angels?

How would the Sodom...ites have known that the people are angels? Do we have any reason to think that they knew the strangers were angels?

 

[Dale]

UberLutheran in OP:
<< How many times have you seen a group of conservatives going out to lunch after church on Sunday? Or how many conservatives are buying things at Home Depot or Wal-Mart on Sunday? Of course, it's not OK for conservatives to work on Sunday, but it IS OK to make someone else work and to make those people serve that group of conservatives! >
*
Under modern conditions it is not always easy to take Sunday off. I've worked in a water plant, for instance. Still, if someone wants to attend a religious service very badly they could find one they could go to. If they work days on Sunday, some churches hold services Sunday evenings, and some at other odd times.
*
I've read that some members of the Brethren Church disconnect their refrigerators on Sunday so that they won't be forcing power company employees to work on Sunday. That's taking it pretty far.
*
Can I make a radical suggestion? The original commandment to keep the Sabbath holy was largely a form a labor legislation. It means that everyone gets a day off once in a while. I draw that conclusion partly because the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy goes back much farther than synagogues. There were no Synagogues to go to when the Jews first started observing the Sabbath.
*
In that sense, going to Wal-Mart on Sunday is not a high crime as long as the people who work there get time off, and perhaps earn a living wage for a reasonable amount of work.

 

[seebs]

I'm confused.

Why do some bibles translate Jude 7 as just "sexual immorality" or something along those lines?

Why are people saying that "strange flesh" can only be a reference to the people going after angels?

How would the Sodom...ites have known that the people are angels? Do we have any reason to think that they knew the strangers were angels?

They might not have... But another very plausible interpretation would be "foreign". And they knew the strangers were foreign, because if they weren't, they wouldn't have been strangers.

 

[Dale]

UberLutheran in OP:
<< Anyone notice how conservatives are quick to apply Leviticus 18 and 20 to gays and lesbians; but conveniently overlook the rest of the book of Leviticus (and Deuteronomy, and the last half of Exodus, and Numbers) which applies to them? >>
*
I agree that modern Christians have a generally confused idea about why we don't follow the Mosaic Law, or only certain parts of it. Try this explanation. It all goes back to the Council of Jerusalem in AD 33, which included Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles.
They sent a letter to the Gentile churches which said: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." Acts15: 28-9 NIV
*
The question of food offered to idols doesn't usually come up today, and I don't believe the animals we eat are strangled. The Apostles in Jerusalem, aided by the Holy Spirit, came up with this summary of the Old Testament law, and for us it clearly puts a lot of emphasis on sexual morality.

 

[seebs]

Very good. Now, the question is... Which "sexual immorality" did that refer to? It was probably porneia. Anyone familiar with period Koine Greek ready to give a reasonable discourse on the question of what that word did or didn't mean when Paul wrote it?

 

[Perceivence]

They might not have... But another very plausible interpretation would be "foreign". And they knew the strangers were foreign, because if they weren't, they wouldn't have been strangers.

Then why the punishment? Was having sex with foreigners considered wrong?

And why would the interpretation that "strange flesh" refers to foreigners be any more likely than it referring to homosexual relations?

 

[- DRA -]

Very good. Now, the question is... Which "sexual immorality" did that refer to? It was probably porneia. Anyone familiar with period Koine Greek ready to give a reasonable discourse on the question of what that word did or didn't mean when Paul wrote it?

1 Cor. 7:1-9 explains pretty well what it means. The Greek word "porneia" is translated as "fornication" or "sexual immorality" in verse 2. If a man is to "have" his own wife to avoid it, a woman her own husband to avoid it, and the widowed or unmarried are to marry if they cannot their passions to avoid it, then it should be rather obvious that it includes sexual activity outside of marriage.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I'm confused.

Why do some bibles translate Jude 7 as just "sexual immorality" or something along those lines?

Why are people saying that "strange flesh" can only be a reference to the people going after angels?

How would the Sodom...ites have known that the people are angels? Do we have any reason to think that they knew the strangers were angels?

While the flesh of angels would be strange flesh, I think foreign flesh would be a better understanding. The men of Sodom were going after foreigners (aka strangers).

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Then why the punishment? Was having sex with foreigners considered wrong?

And why would the interpretation that "strange flesh" refers to foreigners be any more likely than it referring to homosexual relations?

It wasn't simple sex. It was gang rape which would probably lead to death. It was to show their dominance over other peoples.

 

[seebs]

Then why the punishment? Was having sex with foreigners considered wrong?

Well, gang-raping them certainly was.

And why would the interpretation that "strange flesh" refers to foreigners be any more likely than it referring to homosexual relations?

Root of homosexual: HOMOS
Root of heterosexual: HETEROS
Greek text in Jude: HETEROS SARX

It feels like a stretch.

Basically, it would have been incredibly odd to refer to "same flesh" as "strange flesh". Makes no sense at all.

 

[Perceivence]

Jude speaks as though the sin were going after the strange-flesh in and of itself...doesn't he?

Root of homosexual: HOMOS
Root of heterosexual: HETEROS
Greek text in Jude: HETEROS SARX

It feels like a stretch.

Basically, it would have been incredibly odd to refer to "same flesh" as "strange flesh". Makes no sense at all.

I dunno if it's because of the cultural situation now, but I don't see it as a stretch. "same flesh" can be considered as "strange flesh" in reference to sexual relations...can it not?

And the root of the words don't really matter here....

 

[seebs]

Jude speaks as though the sin were going after the strange-flesh in and of itself...doesn't he?

Jude speaks as though it were an example of their behavior. He doesn't seak as though it were the only one, but...

I dunno if it's because of the cultural situation now, but I don't see it as a stretch. "same flesh" can be considered as "strange flesh" in reference to sexual relations...can it not?

It's unidiomatic. It would fit better with, say, bestiality, or going after angels, and better still (in context) with raping foreigners.

And the root of the words don't really matter here....

I think it does, because he was writing in the language from which we got them.

 

[Abiel]

There is one aspect of love that cannot be overlooked:
Jesus said, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word" . . . (John 14:23a).

So which of the posters on this thread don't love Jesus? Would you like to nominate? Liberals? Conservatives? Or shall we be more specific? This seems to say 'If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word just as (insert name) sees it in the (insert century).'

JN 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
JN 15:9 "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit--fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17 This is my command: Love each other.


I think this is what Jesus was talking about in John 14:23...the word he keeps us to obey...love one another. Christians.