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

[UberLutheran]

or they just pick and choose which verses are to be applied (to others, of course), and ignore anything which might apply to them?

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?

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!

Gee: and the Ten Commandments, with their specific instructions on not working on the Sabbath, is mentioned not once, but TWICE -- once in Exodus, once in Deuteronomy! And how conservatives objected when the Alabama Supreme Court removed Judge Roy Moore's sculpture of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Capitol! Anybody else notice that irony?

And those same Leviticus 18 and 20-quoting conservatives are NOWHERE to be found when someone quotes Leviticus 11 (permissable foods), Leviticus 12 (regarding circumcision and a woman's purification following birth), Leviticus 13 (diagnosing and exiling lepers, cf Numbers 5:1-4), Leviticus 15 (men who have seminal emissions and menstruating women are unclean), Leviticus 27 (men are worth 66 percent more to God than women), Numbers 5 (how women are to be ritually poisoned if their husband suspects them of being unfaithful) -- and that's just for starters!

And then -- if you tell them that they are breaking both the letter and spirit of Scripture by doing so - they'll turn around, twist the Scriptures, and say, "Those laws don't apply (to us) since Jesus revoked the law!"

Really? Since when? Jesus certainly didn't say that in the Gospel of Matthew:

17 Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18 For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.
19 Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
20 For I tell you, that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Ask a conservative to explain the following passage in Isaiah 45:7, "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Yahweh, who does all these things." They'll inevitably tell you something to the effect of, "That's not what the passage MEANS" or "That's the wrong TRANSLATION." No -- that IS what the passage means, and that comes from the original Hebrew.

Conservatives LOVE listing all the "attributes" of gay and lesbian people found in Romans 1:26-32 -- but don't you DARE point out to a conservative that at the very beginning of the next chapter, Paul also says:

Therefore you are without excuse, man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things.
2 We know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.
3 Do you know this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?
4 Or do you despise the riches of his goodness, forbearance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

Almost inevitably, you'll find the conservative responding with "Oh, no, I DON'T do those things" or "No, I'm not like those AWFUL homosexuals!" -- but that's not what Paul says. Paul says that the conservatives who judge so smugly and self-righteously andso self-contentedly are EVERY BIT AS BAD as "those AWFUL homosexuals". Maybe they're even WORSE than "those AWFUL homosexuals" whom they so despise, because now we're adding in the sin of "pride".

And the same people who point out that "no homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of God" in 1 Corinthians 6:9 also conveniently ignore 1 Corinthians 6:8, which says, "No, but you yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that against your brothers." Point that out to a conservative and they'll turn around and protest with something to the effect of "Oh, no I DON'T. I'm not like THOSE people."

Sorry, conservative -- you ARE like "those people" You ARE one of "those people". The only one who wasn't one of "those people" was Jesus Himself: the rest of us are human being who are subject to live with its conflicts, unresolvable questions, and Catch-22 situations.

I wonder what the extortioners who build huge megachurches complete with gigantic auditoriums, state of the art audio/video equipment which broadcasts to cable TV, whose churches have branch banks, ATMS, fast food outlets, and Starbucks outlets outside their sanctuaries, and whose pastors are collecting large six and seven digit salaries while imploring people to send in more contributions (or You Can Become An Angel By Contributing $100 Each Month, Which Can Be Charged To Your Credit Card Or Automatically Withdrawn From Your Bank Account) are going to say to Jesus when they come face to face with Him and have to account for fleecing poor people to support their extravagent lifestyles?

But don't tell a conservative that. After all, Scripture DOES say, "God helps those who help themselves."*

----------==========**********O**********==========----------​

*Which actually, it doesn't. Henry Ford -- who, along with Benito Mussolini, was awarded the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle (the highest decoration that could be given to any non-German citizen) in 1938 by Adoph Hitler for helping to finance Hitler's rise to power -- made that statement.

 

[seebs]

Until recently, I assumed that my comparatively shallow understanding of the Bible meant that I needed to be very cautious in debates with conservatives.

But, over the last couple of months, I have found that I consistently know the Bible better than most of the people who chide me for not "believing" in it enough. Time and time again, they quote a passage without awareness of its context, or the connection between an NT passage and an OT passage, or the issues that have come up in translation. Time and time again, I find that they're unaware of, and uninterested in, the differences between different manuscripts, or the way the Jews understood an OT passage for a millennium before Christians came on the scene. Time and time again, they assure me that the Bible says a given thing, when in fact, there is no such passage. They quote a pastor and say it's "in the Bible".

The more I see this, the more I suspect that, in fact, my "light" study of Scripture is in practice more than most people do. Recent threads have done a lot to confirm this; I find that conservatives, by and large, have never read whole swathes of the Bible. A friend of mine from a conservative church had to ask me the chapter and verse of "love thy neighbor as thyself" - of course, there's more than one chapter and verse, the most curious being that it's found in Leviticus 19!

It seems to me that conservative Bible study, true to the nature of the beast, tends to revolve around identifying key passages, preparing oneself with the knowledge of what one is about to confirm, then looking at a small passage without context, and confirming it. Time and time again I see people show total ignorance of even one or two verses past a favored prooftext.

This is perhaps most noticable in the slavery debate; someone posted a wonderful article in Bibliology & Hermeneutics on the difference in hermeneutics that informed the slavery debate. Defenders of slavery chose prooftexts; opponents argued from the Gospel message.

This is a recurring theme in many questions. Legalism revolves around picking individual passages and following them with rigor. Liberalism revolves around trying to take dozens of apparently confusing or contradictory messages and identifying the common theme or schema that allows them to be taken as a coherent whole.

 

[Loki]

This is a recurring theme in many questions. Legalism revolves around picking individual passages and following them with rigor. Liberalism revolves around trying to take dozens of apparently confusing or contradictory messages and identifying the common theme or schema that allows them to be taken as a coherent whole.

More succinct than I would've been able to say it.

I think maybe that the conservatives have their heads buried in the bible, but are ignorant of the culture, controversies, translational issues, and context of the greater work. As Seebs said, they may be great with verses, but cannot assimilate the verses into their greater scope and meaning.

 

[seebs]

Honestly, most of the conservatives I argue with don't know very many verses, either. They have a stable of good "clobber" verses for the things they want to condemn. Most of them seem unable to quote any of the other verses.

 

[artybloke]

I thought I'd copy this in that I wrote on one of the many homosexual threads, as I think it's relevamt

Here's how a conservative justifies his hatred and prejudice of anyone who disagrees with him, or has a different lifestyle to him, by using the Bible:

They take a pair of scissors, and some glue, and a Bible.

They search through the Bible for any verse that can possibly, even distantly, be made to agree with their prejudices. They cut that verse out.

They find another verse that could, if read their way, be made to agree with their prejudices. They cut that out.

These verses are taken from widely disparate and seperated books in the Bible, written in widely different styles and with widely different historical, literary and cultural contexts. All this is ignored by the conservative, because the conservative isn't reading to find out what the text says. The conservative is reading to confirm his own prejudices.

With the glue, they paste these disparate verses together. Lo and Behold, they fit. Or rather, they have been made to fit by people who've already decided what they mean beforehand.

This is known as the "cut and paste" method, or "proof-texting." Search the scriptures, not for what it says, but for what you want it to say, and it will always come up trumps. Want to say that rock-and-roll is bad? Just snip a verse here, snip a verse there, case proved. Never mind that rock-and-roll in the Bible would be an anachronism; just ignore the context and style of writing, or the theme of any particular book or passage. Ignore anything that doesn't confirm your prejudices.

Lo and behold, you can bible-bash gay people till your heart's content. You can even justify the murder of gay people, because you have already decided that your (snip-snip) view of the Bible is the correct one, and people who've never done you any harm, who live quiet lives like the rest of us, must be evil, because you've decided the Bible says so.

That the same cut-and-paste method of using the Bible is used by every heresy since Christendom began, passes you by. Because you've decided to read the Bible, not to discover it, not to find out what it might have to say to challenge you and your life, but as a weapon to beat others you don't like with.

Whited sepulchres comes to mind, full of dry bones and death.

 

[marlow]

I think its very likely that Conservatives don't know the Bible as well as they like to make out. When I hear thenm say 'The Bible has never been disproved by Science' or 'everything in Genesis has been shown to be true' I quote Genesis 1. 14 to 16 , which is impossible to sustain today. I usually don't hear from them again!

 

[livin4thebigman]

As I sit here and read all these posts concerning conservatives, I attempt to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. However, I am finding it very difficult to see that this is not a conservative-bashing thread, but rather people posting their ideas of conservatives.

What we must all remember is that they are out brothers and sisters and need to be shown, in a loving and gentle way, their faults and how to correct them.

Think of Christ and his dealings with us. He continually takes us back despite our shortcomings. Perhaps we should do the same to others.

 

[seebs]

Indeed. But... It is important to keep in mind, when debating with people, what background they actually have, which is not always the background they claim, or that they think they have.

 

[Received]

There is a wonderfully nerd-inspiring story of how everyone is asking what causes X to happen, and how the psychologists and the rest of humanity attempt to tackle the question while the philosophers are left on the kitchen floor like the sincerest of five-year-olds trying to figure out what the heck a cause is. So it may be here with our concept of knowlege. Knowledge is, to use a paraphase, the conscious belief in objectivity; it involves a claim being believed in, while also being true, but also capable of justification. Of course, while this is the official definition of epistemology in the underpaid life-section of philosophy, it also is impossible to fulfill: you cannot know that you know when you do know, and hence cannot justify sufficiently any claimed objectivity. The situation is no different with our hermeneutics; there are, according to Christianity Today in 1999 over 33,600 claimed Christian denominations in the world, all of which were deduced from sincere reasoning given texts offered. In short, the Holy Spirit doesn't take sides in our pettifogging intellectual endeavors. Thus, we should not hold certainty to our interpretations -- i mean, after all, we are already reading the interpretation of an interpretor given our small English language --, but interpret things according to the spirit of Christ, which is precisely love: if things fail to meet with this standard, we should drop them. That is all we really can do; conservatives tend to offer solutions completely opposite to this, relying on the coldness of reason and interpretation.

 

[Perceivence]

I really don't like stereotypes and generalisations...especially when they're negative...

...though, to be fair, the Libearls aren't the only ones with negative stereotypes of the "other side."

 

[- DRA -]

or they just pick and choose which verses are to be applied (to others, of course), and ignore anything which might apply to them?

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?

The law of Moses - - which includes Leviticus chapter 18 & 20 was given exclusively to the Israelites (Rom. 2:14), not to the Gentiles. Nevertheless, today under the law of Christ, there are things that we can learn from the former writings (Rom. 15:4). For instance, in Genesis chapter 19 I can learn that homosexual behavior (men desiring men in Gen. 19:5) was a characteristic of a people that God completely destroyed. I can also learn that God specifically spelled out to the Israelites that He would not tolerate the behavior from His people that were characteristic of the nations that were about to be cast out of the land of Canaan (Lev. 18:24-30).

Jesus took the law of Moses out of the way - - nailing it to His cross (Col. 2:14). See also Heb. 8:6-13.

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!

Gee: and the Ten Commandments, with their specific instructions on not working on the Sabbath, is mentioned not once, but TWICE -- once in Exodus, once in Deuteronomy! And how conservatives objected when the Alabama Supreme Court removed Judge Roy Moore's sculpture of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Capitol! Anybody else notice that irony?

I see conservative Christians eat out on Sundays on a regular basis. They also buy things on Sunday. Know what I think? I think I know one liberal who has his days of the week confused. May I be so bold as to suggest that you do a little research to find out what day of the week that the Sabbath was on?

And those same Leviticus 18 and 20-quoting conservatives are NOWHERE to be found when someone quotes Leviticus 11 (permissable foods), Leviticus 12 (regarding circumcision and a woman's purification following birth), Leviticus 13 (diagnosing and exiling lepers, cf Numbers 5:1-4), Leviticus 15 (men who have seminal emissions and menstruating women are unclean), Leviticus 27 (men are worth 66 percent more to God than women), Numbers 5 (how women are to be ritually poisoned if their husband suspects them of being unfaithful) -- and that's just for starters!

And then -- if you tell them that they are breaking both the letter and spirit of Scripture by doing so - they'll turn around, twist the Scriptures, and say, "Those laws don't apply (to us) since Jesus revoked the law!"

Really? Since when? Jesus certainly didn't say that in the Gospel of Matthew 5:17-20

Doesn't the text say that Jesus came to "fulfill" the law [the law of Moses]?Why couldn't he have fulfilled that law and established His own law? I know of NO conservative who teaches that Jesus "destroyed" the law of Moses. There are many things that we can learn from the law of Moses e.g. 1 Cor. 10:11. The law contains the history and background for much of the New Testament e.g. the whole book of Hebrews.

Ask a conservative to explain the following passage in Isaiah 45:7, "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Yahweh, who does all these things." They'll inevitably tell you something to the effect of, "That's not what the passage MEANS" or "That's the wrong TRANSLATION." No -- that IS what the passage means, and that comes from the original Hebrew.

Note the contrast in Isaiah 45:7 - - light vs. darkness; peace vs. evil. Then note who is being addressed in this passage of Isaiah . . . Cyrus. It is God who brings both light and darkness upon the nations and their leaders. It is both God who brings peace and evil upon them as well. The Hebrew word "ra" - - the word translated "evil" - - includes within its definition such thoughts as misery, disagreeable, unpleasant, unhappiness, calamity, distress, injury, etc. (Strong's) I conclude from this passage that God is directly dealing with the nations and their leaders. I do not conclude that this passage teaches that God is directly responsible for all evil that occurs. If you think it does, then perhaps you can harmonize your understanding of this passage with the book of Job . . . which clearly shows that God does not create all the evil that comes upon man - - Satan is the one bringing the afflictions upon Job, his family, and his possessions.

Conservatives LOVE listing all the "attributes" of gay and lesbian people found in Romans 1:26-32 -- but don't you DARE point out to a conservative that at the very beginning of the next chapter, Paul also says: Romans 2:1-4

Almost inevitably, you'll find the conservative responding with "Oh, no, I DON'T do those things" or "No, I'm not like those AWFUL homosexuals!" -- but that's not what Paul says. Paul says that the conservatives who judge so smugly and self-righteously andso self-contentedly are EVERY BIT AS BAD as "those AWFUL homosexuals". Maybe they're even WORSE than "those AWFUL homosexuals" whom they so despise, because now we're adding in the sin of "pride". Originally Posted by: Romans 2:1-4

First of all, it sounds as if you are judging the hearts of those who oppose homosexuality. How else would you know that they "LOVE" to do this?

Romans 1:26-32 deals with homosexuality, but not with that issue alone. Rather, it is showing the digression of those who turn from God. These actions are characteristic of a society that turns its back to God.

Romans 2:1-4 is not a passage to shy away from. For instance, note verse 2. God has clearly pronounced judgment (condemnation) upon those who practice the things named in 1:18-32. He is pointing out that it is inexcusable to condemn another, but yet practice the same thing yourself (2:1). Thus, he asks the question that He asks in 2:3 - - . . . "do you think" . . . "that you will escape the judgment of God?" (NKJV). Clearly, this passage is condemning one who does the things that he/she condemns others for doing.

And the same people who point out that "no homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of God" in 1 Corinthians 6:9 also conveniently ignore 1 Corinthians 6:8, which says, "No, but you yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that against your brothers." Point that out to a conservative and they'll turn around and protest with something to the effect of "Oh, no I DON'T. I'm not like THOSE people."

The Corinthians were indeed doing the things that they were charged with in 1 Cor. 6:8. They were guilty of doing "wrong". Homosexuality is not the only thing being condemned in verses 9-10. That point should be clear. However, it still does not excuse homosexuality. In fact, it excuses NONE of those things that God condemns in the passage and its context.

Sorry, conservative -- you ARE like "those people" You ARE one of "those people". The only one who wasn't one of "those people" was Jesus Himself: the rest of us are human being who are subject to live with its conflicts, unresolvable questions, and Catch-22 situations.

I wonder what the extortioners who build huge megachurches complete with gigantic auditoriums, state of the art audio/video equipment which broadcasts to cable TV, whose churches have branch banks, ATMS, fast food outlets, and Starbucks outlets outside their sanctuaries, and whose pastors are collecting large six and seven digit salaries while imploring people to send in more contributions (or You Can Become An Angel By Contributing $100 Each Month, Which Can Be Charged To Your Credit Card Or Automatically Withdrawn From Your Bank Account) are going to say to Jesus when they come face to face with Him and have to account for fleecing poor people to support their extravagent lifestyles?

I imagine that they will say, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?" (Matt. 7:21-22). Read the next passage to see Jesus' response to them.

But don't tell a conservative that. After all, Scripture DOES say, "God helps those who help themselves."*

"Be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." (Gal. 6:7).

Uber,

I have one question. It is the same one that Philip asked the eunuch in Acts 8:30. The question has nothing to do with the passage in Isaiah 53 that the eunuch was reading. Rather, my question centers on the passages that you have used (actually, misused or abused would be a better word) to discredit those who are conservative in their approach to Bible study and interpretation. "Do you understand what you are reading"?

. . . DRA

----------==========**********O**********==========----------​

*Which actually, it doesn't. Henry Ford -- who, along with Benito Mussolini, was awarded the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle (the highest decoration that could be given to any non-German citizen) in 1938 by Adoph Hitler for helping to finance Hitler's rise to power -- made that statement.[/QUOTE]

 

[seebs]

What I find fascinating especially about conservatism is that it doesn't matter how thoroughly a claim has been debunked, it'll be used again a week later as though nothing ever happened. It's like a sitcom. You can provide three thousand years of consistent understanding of, say, the Sodom story, and a week later, it's back to being what would be most convenient for someone's argument, even though it's been shown to be wrong, and worse than wrong, over and over.

To disregard the words of two prophets and one Savior just to make a personal point strikes me as ill-considered.

 

[- DRA -]

What I find fascinating especially about conservatism is that it doesn't matter how thoroughly a claim has been debunked, it'll be used again a week later as though nothing ever happened. It's like a sitcom. You can provide three thousand years of consistent understanding of, say, the Sodom story, and a week later, it's back to being what would be most convenient for someone's argument, even though it's been shown to be wrong, and worse than wrong, over and over.

To disregard the words of two prophets and one Savior just to make a personal point strikes me as ill-considered.

Care to elaborate? Specifically, which Scriptures are not being addressed?

Isn't men desiring men what is expressed in Gen. 19:5? Isn't that homosexuality?

How does Jude 7 describe the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? How do you feel about 2 Tim. 3:16a? Is all Scripture inspired, or not? If you agree, then you should be willing to factor Jude 7 also into your understanding of what Sodom was like. Right?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Care to elaborate? Specifically, which Scriptures are not being addressed?

Isn't men desiring men what is expressed in Gen. 19:5? Isn't that homosexuality?

How does Jude 7 describe the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? How do you feel about 2 Tim. 3:16a? Is all Scripture inspired, or not? If you agree, then you should be willing to factor Jude 7 also into your understanding of what Sodom was like. Right?

If you changed the story to have female guests instead of male guests, would the actions of the Sodomites be okay? The problem with interpreting this as primarily having to do with homosexuality is that it has to assert that the homosexual nature of the incident is the most heinous part of it.

 

[seebs]

Care to elaborate? Specifically, which Scriptures are not being addressed?

How about you look at the thread on Sodom we already have going?

Or, tell ya what. Start a new thread, and if you promise to actually study the Bible, instead of reciting what you've always believed, I'll show you all the Scripture. Hint: Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Christ. Three people whose words you ought to already be at least a little familiar with.

Isn't men desiring men what is expressed in Gen. 19:5? Isn't that homosexuality?

No. Rape is not about sex, it's about power. If the men desired men, they had an entire crowd of, by your estimation, horny men they could have picked from. What they wanted wasn't men, it was strangers. Foreigners. People to humiliate and degrade.

How does Jude 7 describe the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah?

As ones who went after HETEROS SARX, or "alien flesh".

Men are not strange, or alien.

How do you feel about 2 Tim. 3:16a? Is all Scripture inspired, or not?

I feel that it's the most abused and proof-texted verse in the entire Bible, and I don't feel like answering a loaded question.

If you agree, then you should be willing to factor Jude 7 also into your understanding of what Sodom was like. Right?

Sure... And indeed, it is suggested that Jude's opinion was that the men of Sodom lusted specifically after angels.

But you're still ignoring a plain old statement. "And these were the sins of thy sister Sodom, ...".

Complete that quote.

You claim to believe the entire book to be inspired, why haven't you read it?

 

[- DRA -]

If you changed the story to have female guests instead of male guests, would the actions of the Sodomites be okay? The problem with interpreting this as primarily having to do with homosexuality is that it has to assert that the homosexual nature of the incident is the most heinous part of it.

Rather than change the story, why not accept the story as it is - - including what Gen. 19:5 and Jude 7 says about the nature of the people there? Isn't men desiring men characteristic of homosexuality? Isn't men desiring men to the point that they refuse women a characteristic of homosexuality?

 

[Starstreak M86]

What is with Christians and saying that the Laws of Moses have been nailed to the Cross with Christ?

The only think that Christ abolished was the sacrificial laws, the cermonial laws, and the dietary laws (which I never believed were literal anyway, because of what Christ had to say about the dietary laws).

We are STILL expected to hold up every other part of the Law. The only reason why we don't still make sacrifice and hold those cermonies, is because they were all symbolic of the atonment of Christ, and Christ actually carried them out. (Read the Epistle to the Hebrews, it shows how the Jewish cermonies were all symbolic of Christ's death).

The New Testament did not topple over the Old Testament. The New Testament is nothing more than Old Testament Redux, or Old Testament: Part II. Paul said that Christ renewed the Law, not replaced it. People misunderstand what Paul meant about the Law being "nailed to the Cross". You are still expected to uphold the Ten Commandments and such.

Nothing that Christ said was in conflict with the Old Testament. In fact, Christ did NOTHING BUT QUOTE THE OT! Over 300 times! Jesus only clarified what the Law meant all along, not changed it really. Jesus teaching about "turn the other cheek", "Love thy neighbor", "Gentiles are not inherently evil" and such can all be found in the OT as well. Not to mention that Christ has the EXACT same personality as God in the Old Tesament. The Son has wrath as well (such as in His Second Coming).

 

[UberLutheran]

The law of Moses - - which includes Leviticus chapter 18 & 20 was given exclusively to the Israelites (Rom. 2:14), not to the Gentiles. Nevertheless, today under the law of Christ, there are things that we can learn from the former writings (Rom. 15:4). For instance, in Genesis chapter 19 I can learn that homosexual behavior (men desiring men in Gen. 19:5) was a characteristic of a people that God completely destroyed. I can also learn that God specifically spelled out to the Israelites that He would not tolerate the behavior from His people that were characteristic of the nations that were about to be cast out of the land of Canaan (Lev. 18:24-30).

Jesus took the law of Moses out of the way - - nailing it to His cross (Col. 2:14). See also Heb. 8:6-13.

Either Jesus said, in Matthew 5:17-20, "Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you, that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." or He did not.

If you really think He did NOT say this, even though a plain and clear reading of Matthew 5:17-20 says He most assuredly DID say this, then you are twisting Scripture to suit your own needs.

I see conservative Christians eat out on Sundays on a regular basis. They also buy things on Sunday. Know what I think? I think I know one liberal who has his days of the week confused. May I be so bold as to suggest that you do a little research to find out what day of the week that the Sabbath was on?

The Sabbath was originally on the seventh day of the week (Saturday), but changed to Sunday by Christians as a weekly observance of the Resurrection off the Lord. Regardless of the day of the week, it is STILL a Sabbath and it is to be observed.

If Christians really believed that all Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness, then they might actually DO what Scripture requires them to do instead of twisting Scripture to justify doing whatever they want.

Note the contrast in Isaiah 45:7 - - light vs. darkness; peace vs. evil. Then note who is being addressed in this passage of Isaiah . . . Cyrus. It is God who brings both light and darkness upon the nations and their leaders. It is both God who brings peace and evil upon them as well. The Hebrew word "ra" - - the word translated "evil" - - includes within its definition such thoughts as misery, disagreeable, unpleasant, unhappiness, calamity, distress, injury, etc. (Strong's) I conclude from this passage that God is directly dealing with the nations and their leaders. I do not conclude that this passage teaches that God is directly responsible for all evil that occurs. If you think it does, then perhaps you can harmonize your understanding of this passage with the book of Job . . . which clearly shows that God does not create all the evil that comes upon man - - Satan is the one bringing the afflictions upon Job, his family, and his possessions.

No. God allows Satan to bring the afflictions upon Job, his family, and his possessions.

First of all, it sounds as if you are judging the hearts of those who oppose homosexuality. How else would you know that they "LOVE" to do this?

Romans 1:26-32 deals with homosexuality, but not with that issue alone. Rather, it is showing the digression of those who turn from God. These actions are characteristic of a society that turns its back to God.

I am not judging the hearts of those who oppose homosexuality. I do not judge by appearances, but I judge with the righteous judgment of God. I am loving the sinner, but hating the sin.

Romans 2:1-4 is not a passage to shy away from. For instance, note verse 2. God has clearly pronounced judgment (condemnation) upon those who practice the things named in 1:18-32. He is pointing out that it is inexcusable to condemn another, but yet practice the same thing yourself (2:1). Thus, he asks the question that He asks in 2:3 - - . . . "do you think" . . . "that you will escape the judgment of God?" (NKJV). Clearly, this passage is condemning one who does the things that he/she condemns others for doing.

Again, you're twisting the plain meaning of the Scriptures.

Uber,

I have one question. It is the same one that Philip asked the eunuch in Acts 8:30. The question has nothing to do with the passage in Isaiah 53 that the eunuch was reading. Rather, my question centers on the passages that you have used (actually, misused or abused would be a better word) to discredit those who are conservative in their approach to Bible study and interpretation. "Do you understand what you are reading"?

. . . DRA

Yes. As a matter of fact, I do.

Now, I have a question for you.

How do you feel after having the Scriptures presented to you in exactly the same way that fundamentalists present the Scriptures to us -- with exactly the same arrogance, the same self-righteousness, the same self-justifications, the same lack of empathy, the same unwillingness to listen and/or reason, and the same low-level but overt level of hostility that we have to deal with, daily, from conservatives?

I don't believe even a tenth of the stuff I just wrote in this post -- but I wanted to present conservatives a little taste of what it feels like to be on the receiving end of this kind of "debate".

By the way: God did allow Satan to bring the afflictions upon Job, his family, and his possessions, with the proviso that Satan was not allowed to kill Job. (Liberals read Scripture, too.)

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Rather than change the story, why not accept the story as it is - - including what Gen. 19:5 and Jude 7 says about the nature of the people there? Isn't men desiring men characteristic of homosexuality? Isn't men desiring men to the point that they refuse women a characteristic of homosexuality?

I think you missed the point of my question. If Lot's guests had been women and the men had acted in the same way, would have God destroyed the city? To put it another way, is the homosexual element of the situation the most heinous aspect of the situation?

 

[Right_Wing]

this is truly amazing talk about a mixed up perception! first of all you are talking about "conservatives" as being these rich evil people thats just not true! First of all part of understanding and knowing the bible is to know which rules apply which ones are tradition and which are applicable to our lives today! Thats old testament! i mean come on this is basic bible stuff! And your argument that God made evil whats your point? its hard to tell whether you are just quoting the scripture or actually making an argument! I look at "liberals" and see people who are out to help themselves now come off your ideas that conservatives are all rich people who dont care about the poor! isn't it interesting that the "Liberal" party is the one caring about the "little people" but not the unborn babies that they condone the slaughtering of?? Lets talk truthfully your quoting the bible for your purposes trying to make Conservatives appear evil now both parties have their downfalls but to say that conservative christians are evil is horrible! i would like to ask you a question how can anyone be a Christian Democrat i mean christian who is pro-abortion talk about hipocrasy o wait John Kerry a catholic who is pro-Abortion!!