Just Curious . . .

jamielindas · Jul 8, 2008

Does this all depend on whether one believes the Bible is the word of God or just another religious text?

Someone can be a Bible scholar and be an atheist, can't they? Just as one could be an expert in Norse Mythology and not believe Thor is real, right?
Either way, I still think it is important to understand the historical and cultural context in which the text was written. It is also important to understand that the english versions we all have access to today have been manipulated and don't always reflect the language and intent of the original text.

Ohioprof · Jul 8, 2008

DMagoh said:
No, what I am saying is - if a person who claims to be a Bible scholar says the Bible is wrong, if I or anyone else believes the Bible is true and is trying to follow the Bible, then his opinion on whether something is sin or not is irrelevant because he is not basing it on the Bible. I want someone to explain what the Bible says, not that it doesnt matter what it says cause it's wrong. Why would any Bible-believing person put any stock in the rantings of someone who doesnt believe the Bible?

Your original point to me was that you could not find any Bible scholars who are not gay who do not think the Bible calls "homosexuality" a "sin." I gave you a pretty long list of non-gay Bible scholars who do not regard homosexuality as a sin, or who think the Bible does not call homosexuality a sin. You got to the second name on the list, a well-known Bible scholar, and because you don't agree with him, you dismiss him as a scholar and label his writings on the topic "rantings."

You probably aren't going to agree with the views of ANY of the Bible scholars I listed, because you apparently don't believe that a true Bible scholar can interpret the Bible differently than you do. Your argument that there are no heterosexual Bible scholars who disagree with you about "homosexuality" is only sustained by you assertion that to be a Bible scholar, a person has to agree with you. If he or she doesn't agree with you, then they are by your definition not a Bible scholar. So of course you won't find anyone who fits your definition of a Bible scholar who disagrees with you about homosexuality, because your definition of a Bible scholar is someone who agrees with you. At least that is how your argument sounds.

I did not say in my post that you have to agree with all or any of the Bible scholars I listed. I just listed them to illustrate that there are heterosexual Bible scholars who do not regard homosexuality as a sin and/or who do not think the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. You are certainly free to disagree with them or to ignore their writings. But they are Bible scholars, and they interpret the Bible differently than you do on this particular subject.

On the question of whether a Bible-believing Christian can listen to someone who says the Bible is wrong, I think we can all learn by listening to each other. As for whether a Bible believer can see the Bible as wrong on some matters, it depends on how one believes in the Bible. Different Christians believe in the Bible in different ways. Not all Christians view the Bible as inerrant or infallible or even as the word of God. But they can still believe in the Bible as a source of inspiration and as a repository of insights into truth, while regarding some of the Bible as potentially wrong. Bishop Spong is a Christian. He just understands the Bible differently than you do.

savedandhappy1 · Jul 8, 2008

jamielindas said:
It is also important to understand that the english versions we all have access to today have been manipulated and don't always reflect the language and intent of the original text.

The links below will direct you to these sites, and images of this manuscript. I have also included the English Greek intilenear for Romans, and concordance. These resources will show that modern English translations of this letter are subtantially the same, and has remained in tact. Combined with preserved writings of early church leaders citing passages that concurr with the same passages found in modern translations of the Holy Bible, we can have confidence in its itegrity. We should also seriously heed the message of this letter where the Apostle Paul emphasizes the need to perservere in the gospel he received/passed on by grace through faith stating, "Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you will also be cut off " (Romans 11:20-24).

http://www.noothergospel.com/Romans Gospel Page.html

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom1.pdf

Is Our Copy of the Bible a Reliable Copy of the Original?
by Rich Deem
Introduction

Many skeptics believe that the Bible has been drastically changed over the centuries. In reality, the Bible has been translated into a number of different languages (first Latin, then English and other languages, see History of the Bible). However, the ancient manuscripts (written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) have been reliably copied over the centuries - with very few alterations.

In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).
Manuscript Evidence for Ancient WritingsAuthorWrittenEarliest CopyTime Span# Mss.Caesar100-44 B.C.900 A.D.1,000 yrs10Plato427-347 B.C.900 A.D.1,200 yrs7Thucydides460-400 B.C.900 A.D.1,300 yrs8Tacitus100 A.D.1100 A.D.1,000 yrs20Suetonius75-160 A.D.950 A.D.800 yrs8Homer (Iliad)900 B.C.400 B.C.500 yrs643New Testament40-100 A.D.125 A.D.25-50 yrs24,000
Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."
Conclusion

With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% (5) of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance (i.e., none would alter basic Christian doctrine). Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, theological liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

The New Testament

The Greek Manuscript Evidence

There are more than 4,000 different ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or portions of the New Testament that have survived to our time. These are written on different materials.

Conclusion

In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."{8}

B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament."{9} In other words, the small changes and variations in manuscripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations. We have the Word of God.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

Ohioprof · Jul 8, 2008

savedandhappy1 said:
The links below will direct you to these sites, and images of this manuscript. I have also included the English Greek intilenear for Romans, and concordance. These resources will show that modern English translations of this letter are subtantially the same, and has remained in tact. Combined with preserved writings of early church leaders citing passages that concurr with the same passages found in modern translations of the Holy Bible, we can have confidence in its itegrity. We should also seriously heed the message of this letter where the Apostle Paul emphasizes the need to perservere in the gospel he received/passed on by grace through faith stating, "Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you will also be cut off " (Romans 11:20-24).

http://www.noothergospel.com/Romans Gospel Page.html

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom1.pdf

Is Our Copy of the Bible a Reliable Copy of the Original?
by Rich Deem
Introduction

Many skeptics believe that the Bible has been drastically changed over the centuries. In reality, the Bible has been translated into a number of different languages (first Latin, then English and other languages, see History of the Bible). However, the ancient manuscripts (written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) have been reliably copied over the centuries - with very few alterations.

In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).
Manuscript Evidence for Ancient WritingsAuthorWrittenEarliest CopyTime Span# Mss.Caesar100-44 B.C.900 A.D.1,000 yrs10Plato427-347 B.C.900 A.D.1,200 yrs7Thucydides460-400 B.C.900 A.D.1,300 yrs8Tacitus100 A.D.1100 A.D.1,000 yrs20Suetonius75-160 A.D.950 A.D.800 yrs8Homer (Iliad)900 B.C.400 B.C.500 yrs643New Testament40-100 A.D.125 A.D.25-50 yrs24,000
Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."
Conclusion

With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% (5) of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance (i.e., none would alter basic Christian doctrine). Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, theological liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

The New Testament

The Greek Manuscript Evidence

There are more than 4,000 different ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or portions of the New Testament that have survived to our time. These are written on different materials.

Conclusion

In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."{8}

B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament."{9} In other words, the small changes and variations in manuscripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations. We have the Word of God.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

Scholar Bart Ehrman disagrees with Rich Deem about this. See Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. Ehrman writes that the Bible has been changed substantially over time.

jamielindas · Jul 8, 2008

yet we still have the substitution of the word homosexual for fornicator or sodimite

we also have the substitution of the word manservent for slave.

are this intentionally, rather than mistranslations?

jamielindas · Jul 8, 2008

Also... sea of reeds or the Red Sea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yam_Suph

DMagoh · Jul 8, 2008

Ohioprof said:
...But they can still believe in the Bible as a source of inspiration and as a repository of insights into truth, while regarding some of the Bible as potentially wrong...

So how do we know what part of the Bible is wrong?

Did Jesus really die for our sins? Did he really rise up from the grave? On what basis do you believe which parts of the Bible are true and others aren't? What do you base your salvation on if you believe the Bible is potentially wrong?

jamielindas · Jul 8, 2008

DMagoh said:
So how do we know what part of the Bible is wrong?

Did Jesus really die for our sins? Did he really rise up from the grave? On what basis do you believe which parts of the Bible are true and others aren't? What do you base your salvation on if you believe the Bible is potentially wrong?

Well my friend
I'm afraid you've stumbled on the reason why some of us aren't christian or have given up the christian faith.
What is salvation? why do you need it? Is is possible that a benevolent deity exists that isn't exactly what the Bible describes? Is it possible that authors have corrupted God's word by integrating their own cultural values into a divinely inspired text?
Is it possible that Jesus was a philosopher with a message of hope, tolerance and redemption, but not necessarily divine?

Ohioprof · Jul 8, 2008

DMagoh said:
So how do we know what part of the Bible is wrong?

Did Jesus really die for our sins? Did he really rise up from the grave? On what basis do you believe which parts of the Bible are true and others aren't? What do you base your salvation on if you believe the Bible is potentially wrong?

These questions to me are off topic for this thread and for this subforum. They are more broadly theological questions, not questions about or related to homosexuality. My point to you was simply that there are Bible scholars who are heterosexual who do not regard same-sex relations or "homosexuality" as a sin. Why Bishop Spong believes as he does about the Bible is a question you should direct to him. Whether he believes the Bible is "wrong" or not, he is a Bible scholar. He is a scholar with whom you disagree about certain issues, including homosexuality.

savedandhappy1 · Jul 8, 2008

Ohioprof said:
Scholar Bart Ehrman disagrees with Rich Deem about this. See Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. Ehrman writes that the Bible has been changed substantially over time.

So the old manuscripts, which I gave a link to show one of them, are what????

When you find old manuscripts in many places and they all say the same thing.....oh well this was already shown by more then Rich Deem.

If you want to find out the truth you can get books with the Dead Sea Scrolls in them and search it out for yourself. I ordered one from some place, I can find out where if interested. It is alittle dry, but am working my way through it.

savedandhappy1 · Jul 8, 2008

Severe Thunderstorms hitting us, will check back tomorrow. Need to shut down computer.

jamielindas · Jul 9, 2008

What was the topic again?

why is it that some christians feel compelled to judge so often and so harshly?
(i believe this was specifically in the homosexual conduct realm)

dead2self · Jul 12, 2008

Getting back on track with the OP...

KCKID said:
I've been participating on the sub-forum now for a few months. During that time I've read many posts from just a few posters that really confuse me. I mean, they seem to meter out God's judgment on others (in this case homosexuals) as if they somehow consider themselves as being without any flaws (sin, if you like) in their character at all. In fact, the tone of the posts ARE at times glaringly pious. And, while they might quote scriptures of condemnation toward others (nice, huh?) you kind of know deep down that they are mainly voicing their own prejudices in the guise of 'godly concern'. In actuality, I'm sure that God doesn't need them to fight His battles ANYWAY.

I have a few questions for them and they are: Why do you consider yourselves as being 'better' Christians than the homosexuals on this forum who also consider themselves Christians? Who gave you the authority to play God when the playing field is a level one? Why are your own sins (if you actually confess to having any) of lesser weight than the so-called sin of homosexuality?

The questions are legit ones. I'm REALLY curious as to how anyone can possibly exalt themselves highly enough to consider someone else a 'lesser' Christian than they are. How does that work?

Ok, I'll make an attempt to answer here.

First off, I, for one, do not consider myself a better Christian than anyone. In fact, there are Christians and non-Christians. That's all. There are no "better" Christians. Thinking you are superior is a warning sign that you should examine your own salvation.

Now, the other questions have answers that cannot really be separated, so I'll just give my answer to them in general. I think the problem is really a worng view of sin and what a Christian really is. Now I am going to state off the bat that I view homosexual acts (not deisres) as sinful and believe the Bible to be inerrant and literal. I have to have a starting point for my views, and that is it. I know that many here will disagree with what I say, but I would ask that it be taken for what it is. It is an answer to the questions from a loving, compassionate converative view. Whether that view is right or wrong in it's basis is not a discussion for here, but rather another time and another thread.

The nature of true Christianity as taught in scripture and the realtion we have with other Christians and non-Christians is too often misunderstood or ignored.

The Bible is explicit in what the evidence of true salvation is, and gives us many tests to determine if we are in the faith. We are told that if we live in sin, we are not saved. That presents us with a large problem here. We have a lot of people who we see to be living in sin, yet claiming to be saved. Instead of digging deeper, too many of us rush in all guns blazing. Scripture is rattled off condemming people with little of love or compassion. This is most unfortunate.

Let us look at a few possibilities here regarding homosexuals. We have three basic groups as I see it.
1) Non-Christians
2) Professing Christians that do not believe they live in sin
3) Professing Christians who do believe they are living in sin

Now, let us take great care in how we deal with this. Scripture is not only clear on sin and salvation, but also that without love, nothing we do is of any account. Love absolutely must be in everything we do. So what is the most loving way to deal with these groups. First, we need to understand love. Love is not making others feel better in the short term necessarily. True love is doing what we believe is best for another, what will benefit them the most.

With group 1, the overiding concern is for their salvation. In that respect the nature of their sin is entirely irrelavent. There is no reason to see one sin as worse than another. A single lie is enough to earn an eternity in the lake of fire. So, berating a non-Christian for their sin is useless and harmful. Why should we expect the unsaved to live according to the word of God? We certainly did not before salvation. So the response to groups 1 should be the same as for any other non-Christians, simply witnessing to them and prayng that God would do His work on them.

Group 2 is far harder and requires great care in approah and compassion. If a professing Christian continues in sin and denies it, then the loving thing to do would be to try to show them their error. There is a good chance, according to scripture, that such a person is unsaved. But as they profess Christ, then the approach is far more in depth and delicate than a simple Gospel presentation. There are texts to bring to light regarding the tests to examine ourselves. But we cannot examine them. They must examine themselves. It is between them and God. So it is with thier sin. All we can do is do our best to educate. God must open their eyes if they are to be opened. He can and will use scripture we show to do this, but in the end it must be His work. No one can be argued into change, and trying to do so is futile. Our main goal here is not to point out their flaws, but to love them and try to help them.

Group 3 is a little easier. Once a person gets to this stage, they are ready to call out to God for deliverance. The loving thng to do is to help them in this.

In all this, a desire for the eternal wellbeing of others should guide us. Even if one sees our views of heaven and hell as false, it is what we believe. We are not trying to make everyone conform, but rather see a real eternal danger and do not want any to fall into it. Conversly, we experience a wonderful joy in Christ and want that everyone should experience it.

OllieFranz · Jul 12, 2008

dead2self said:
Getting back on track with the OP...

Ok, I'll make an attempt to answer here.

First off, I, for one, do not consider myself a better Christian than anyone. In fact, there are Christians and non-Christians. That's all. There are no "better" Christians. Thinking you are superior is a warning sign that you should examine your own salvation.

Now, the other questions have answers that cannot really be separated, so I'll just give my answer to them in general. I think the problem is really a worng view of sin and what a Christian really is. Now I am going to state off the bat that I view homosexual acts (not deisres) as sinful and believe the Bible to be inerrant and literal. I have to have a starting point for my views, and that is it. I know that many here will disagree with what I say, but I would ask that it be taken for what it is. It is an answer to the questions from a loving, compassionate converative view. Whether that view is right or wrong in it's basis is not a discussion for here, but rather another time and another thread.

The nature of true Christianity as taught in scripture and the realtion we have with other Christians and non-Christians is too often misunderstood or ignored.

The Bible is explicit in what the evidence of true salvation is, and gives us many tests to determine if we are in the faith. We are told that if we live in sin, we are not saved. That presents us with a large problem here. We have a lot of people who we see to be living in sin, yet claiming to be saved. Instead of digging deeper, too many of us rush in all guns blazing. Scripture is rattled off condemming people with little of love or compassion. This is most unfortunate.

Let us look at a few possibilities here regarding homosexuals. We have three basic groups as I see it.
1) Non-Christians
2) Professing Christians that do not believe they live in sin
3) Professing Christians who do believe they are living in sin

Now, let us take great care in how we deal with this. Scripture is not only clear on sin and salvation, but also that without love, nothing we do is of any account. Love absolutely must be in everything we do. So what is the most loving way to deal with these groups. First, we need to understand love. Love is not making others feel better in the short term necessarily. True love is doing what we believe is best for another, what will benefit them the most.

With group 1, the overiding concern is for their salvation. In that respect the nature of their sin is entirely irrelavent. There is no reason to see one sin as worse than another. A single lie is enough to earn an eternity in the lake of fire. So, berating a non-Christian for their sin is useless and harmful. Why should we expect the unsaved to live according to the word of God? We certainly did not before salvation. So the response to groups 1 should be the same as for any other non-Christians, simply witnessing to them and prayng that God would do His work on them.

Group 2 is far harder and requires great care in approah and compassion. If a professing Christian continues in sin and denies it, then the loving thing to do would be to try to show them their error. There is a good chance, according to scripture, that such a person is unsaved. But as they profess Christ, then the approach is far more in depth and delicate than a simple Gospel presentation. There are texts to bring to light regarding the tests to examine ourselves. But we cannot examine them. They must examine themselves. It is between them and God. So it is with thier sin. All we can do is do our best to educate. God must open their eyes if they are to be opened. He can and will use scripture we show to do this, but in the end it must be His work. No one can be argued into change, and trying to do so is futile. Our main goal here is not to point out their flaws, but to love them and try to help them.

Group 3 is a little easier. Once a person gets to this stage, they are ready to call out to God for deliverance. The loving thng to do is to help them in this.

In all this, a desire for the eternal wellbeing of others should guide us. Even if one sees our views of heaven and hell as false, it is what we believe. We are not trying to make everyone conform, but rather see a real eternal danger and do not want any to fall into it. Conversly, we experience a wonderful joy in Christ and want that everyone should experience it.

Very well thought out and compassionate. I thank you for your answer.

There is one possibility that you left out, however. And that is accepting that your understanding of the Scriptures may not be perfect at every point. There is a chance that Group 2's interpretation of the offending verses may not be as much in error as you believe it to be.

However, in accordance to your request: "Whether that view is right or wrong in it's basis is not a discussion for here, but rather another time and another thread." I will not argue the specifics here, but rather look at the Biblical principles involved when two groups of Christians disagree on whether agiven action is a sin or not.

The main passage for resolving such a dilemma can be found in Romans 14. And the issue is also touched on in Galatians, Ephesians, Acts, and both letters to the Corinthians.

Paul looked at two issues separating one group of Christians from another: "tainted" meat, and Sabbath laws. In both cases, the princples are: 1) If we believe that the action is a sin, then it would be a sin for us to ignore our consciences in this matter, regardless of the general truth of the sinfulness of the action. [see Romans 14:23] 2) If a "weaker brother" is struggling with the issue, it would not be an act of love to tempt him to ignore his conscience on this matter. [see Romans 14:15] 3) Although we should dialogue to attempt to resolve the queston of whether the action is sin, one should not judge or condemn those on the other side of the issue, That would not be a loving approach. [see Romans 14:1-13]

Some people use the example of the Corinthian couple living in incest to show that it is all right to judge a person for public sins of sexual immorality [see 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 2] But there is no indication that the couple honestly believed that their relationship was not sinful. Instead, the indications are that they were selfishly and deliberately hurting the rest of their family and their church by their actons. The very fact that they eventually repented shows that. It is also to be noted that the relationship was an affair, not a marriage, since the woman was married to the man's father at the time.

dead2self · Jul 12, 2008

OllieFranz,

First of all, thank you for not enterining into the debate of interpretation right here.

Now, as for Romans 14, from the persepective of most of us who see homosexual acts as sinful, there are just a few problems applying it. Those problems, of course, lie at the heart of the problem here.

First, I think we can all agree as to the purpose of Romans 14, to at a guide in dealing with grey areas. Additinally one may note that both examples in Romans 14 have the same properties. Both were Old Testament law that are no longer in effect, and which the comming of Jesus changed forever. There were, however, ehtinc Jews who could not believe that they could eat meat or regard all days as holy to the Lord. So the prinicple is that if we have the faith to do a thing not forbidden and have a clean conscience it is not a sin. If we act against a guilty conscience , however, we sin.

Now, from our perspective, the application of this principle to homosexual acts presents a great problem. Conservatives are quick to point out levitical law prohibiting sexual realtions between men. The obvious defence here is of course that the OT laws are no longer in effect. How many conservatives trim hair on their temples and shave their faces? How many eat pork? Clearly, the OT law was not for us, and therefore this could be seen as an issue for the Rpmans 14 principle. The problem we run into in that regard is as following.

We see homosexual acts as being specifically prohibited and condemned in the New Testament as well. Romans 14 cannot be applied to anything specified as a sin, but only to neutral acts. It is in our interpretation of the texts in question that our problems lie. So you can see that from your perspective, Romans 14 is very applicable, but becasue we see homosexual acts as being specifically labelled as sinful, we cannot apply it. I hope that clears up where we are comming from.

DMagoh · Jul 12, 2008

KCKID said:
Why are your own sins (if you actually confess to having any) of lesser weight than the so-called sin of homosexuality?

My sins are not of lesser weight. The difference is, I confess my sins and repent whenever I commit one. I dont try to justify it and pretend it is not a sin. HUGE DIFFERENCE. If I stumble and look at a woman lustfully, I confess it that day and try to do better next time. I dont pretend it's okay to mentally undress women and have lust in my heart just because it's a natural inclination to do so.

The beef is not that you sin, the beef is that you sin unrepentantly and even try to convince others that it is not sin. I wouldnt even be in this forum except that I want to make sure no impressionable young Christians get convinced by others that homosexuality, pre-marital sex, pornography, and drugs are A-OK with God.

ChaliceThunder · Jul 12, 2008

I do believe most gay Christians here admit to and repent of the sin in our lives.
At least I strive to do so.

But I will not repent for something that does not require repentance. God made me who I am, and loves me exactly as he made me. Being gay is not a sin, and being faithfully partnered is not a sin - in fact it is a blessing...one for which we thank God every day.

OllieFranz · Jul 12, 2008

dead2self said:
OllieFranz,

First of all, thank you for not enterining into the debate of interpretation right here.

Now, as for Romans 14, from the persepective of most of us who see homosexual acts as sinful, there are just a few problems applying it. Those problems, of course, lie at the heart of the problem here.

First, I think we can all agree as to the purpose of Romans 14, to at a guide in dealing with grey areas. Additinally one may note that both examples in Romans 14 have the same properties. Both were Old Testament law that are no longer in effect, and which the comming of Jesus changed forever. There were, however, ehtinc Jews who could not believe that they could eat meat or regard all days as holy to the Lord. So the prinicple is that if we have the faith to do a thing not forbidden and have a clean conscience it is not a sin. If we act against a guilty conscience , however, we sin.

Now, from our perspective, the application of this principle to homosexual acts presents a great problem. Conservatives are quick to point out levitical law prohibiting sexual realtions between men. The obvious defence here is of course that the OT laws are no longer in effect. How many conservatives trim hair on their temples and shave their faces? How many eat pork? Clearly, the OT law was not for us, and therefore this could be seen as an issue for the Rpmans 14 principle. The problem we run into in that regard is as following.

We see homosexual acts as being specifically prohibited and condemned in the New Testament as well. Romans 14 cannot be applied to anything specified as a sin, but only to neutral acts. It is in our interpretation of the texts in question that our problems lie. So you can see that from your perspective, Romans 14 is very applicable, but becasue we see homosexual acts as being specifically labelled as sinful, we cannot apply it. I hope that clears up where we are comming from.

At your request, I refrained from getting into the specifics of the passages used to condemn homosexuality in this conversation. But in this response you make several unBiblical assumptions, and take my silence (again at your request) as an agreement with those assumptions. I had written an in-depth response to those assumptions and a thorough examination of the Scriptures in question, but I lost it due to a misplaced mouse click. (I hate when that happens.)

Thinking over what I lost. It might not be necessary or advisable to get so carried away at this point in our conversation. So perhaps it was a good thing. This way I can concentrate on your assumptions.

First, I think we can all agree as to the purpose of Romans 14, to at a guide in dealing with grey areas. Additinally one may note that both examples in Romans 14 have the same properties. Both were Old Testament law that are no longer in effect, and which the comming of Jesus changed forever.

Assumption 1: Some portions of the Law have been abolished, and others remain in effect. This is a popular assumption, but it is not Biblical. Sometimes it is justified by dividing the Law into different categories such as "ceremonial" vs "moral." But there is no Biblical basis for such a division.

[BIBLE]Matthew 5:17-18[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Romans 3:31[/BIBLE]

The Law was not changed by the coming of Christ. What was changed was us. We are redeemed in Christ and are no longer subject to the letter of the Law. The Holy Spirit indwells us and teaches us the true spirit of the Law. We are not bound by the law, but by the prompting of the Spirit. In several of his letters Paul repeats that All things are now lawful (though he is quick to add that not all of those things are "profitable").

The Law still exists and it still convicts those who are still subject to it. But that does not include us. We are dead to the Law, and it is dead to us. This is not an excuse for lawlessness and wanton behavior (see Romans 6:1-2ff). We are no longer bound to the written Law, but to the Living Lawmaker. The written law could not take into consideration that we are imperfect and sinful, and could not extend mercy. Our Advocate, the Holy Spirit can and does. The written law could not take into consideration the motives behind and effects of every action. It simply forbade an acton if it usually or often was done for evil reasons or had evil effects. With the Holy Spirit as our guide and Teacher, we can judge our individual choices instead of following rules that may have originally been intended for different circumstances entirely.

Now, from our perspective, the application of this principle to homosexual acts presents a great problem. Conservatives are quick to point out levitical law prohibiting sexual realtions between men. The obvious defence here is of course that the OT laws are no longer in effect.

Assumption 2: The "obvious defence" is the only counterclaim. This assumption presupposes, for example, that everyone agrees with your interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Not everyone does. Since this assumption builds on Assumption 1, it also conveniently ignores what some can claim is the real reason that the other Levitical laws are specifically "suspended" (for lack of a better word that would apply to both sides of the discussion at this point)

The problem we run into in that regard is as following.

We see homosexual acts as being specifically prohibited and condemned in the New Testament as well. Romans 14 cannot be applied to anything specified as a sin, but only to neutral acts.

Assumption 3: The New Testament specifically prohibits "homosexual acts."

At this point I have to wonder if you weren't being just a little dishonest in your request not to debate the scriptures that conservatives claim forbid homosexuality. When you know that I am being silent on an issue to honor a request that you made, you should not take that silence to indicate that we can make an assumption concerning that very issue and assume it is undisputed.

The fact of the matter is that I (and many other Christians) very much dispute that the passages in question (Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11) are about homosexuality at all, and in any case, it is clear that the focus of the passages are not on any of the individual sins listed, but on the Redemption provided by Jesus Christ.

dead2self · Jul 14, 2008

First off I must admit that I was indeed careless in some wording and lazy in my application. Perhaps I did make an assupmption or two I should not have. In particular I thank you for brining to my attention my sloppy handling of biblical arguments.

OllieFranz said:
Assumption 1: Some portions of the Law have been abolished, and others remain in effect. This is a popular assumption, but it is not Biblical. Sometimes it is justified by dividing the Law into different categories such as "ceremonial" vs "moral." But there is no Biblical basis for such a division.

[bible]Matthew 5:17-18[/bible]
[bible]Romans 3:31[/bible]

The Law was not changed by the coming of Christ. What was changed was us. We are redeemed in Christ and are no longer subject to the letter of the Law. The Holy Spirit indwells us and teaches us the true spirit of the Law. We are not bound by the law, but by the prompting of the Spirit. In several of his letters Paul repeats that All things are now lawful (though he is quick to add that not all of those things are "profitable").

The Law still exists and it still convicts those who are still subject to it. But that does not include us. We are dead to the Law, and it is dead to us. This is not an excuse for lawlessness and wanton behavior (see Romans 6:1-2ff). We are no longer bound to the written Law, but to the Living Lawmaker. The written law could not take into consideration that we are imperfect and sinful, and could not extend mercy. Our Advocate, the Holy Spirit can and does. The written law could not take into consideration the motives behind and effects of every action. It simply forbade an acton if it usually or often was done for evil reasons or had evil effects. With the Holy Spirit as our guide and Teacher, we can judge our individual choices instead of following rules that may have originally been intended for different circumstances entirely.

And here is my sloppy theology. In the interest of berevity I opted for the quick and easy way out of the overly simplistic statements. Not what I have should have done. Of course this is a complicated issue. But to clarify one point, I do see it as Biblical that there are laws no longer in effect. The laws meant to seperate Israel from her nieghbors in particualar. Furthermore, for believers acting in faith, there are things prhibited by law that are now allowed. I guess my point (that I made carelessly) was that on the conserative side of the debate we often use levitical law as a proof that homosexuality is sinful without reconciling this view with our obvious contraventions of other levitical laws. Conversly, on the more liberal side (I know I am generalising here a bit but I haven't quite got the hang of what is acceptable terminology for the sides here yet), I have heard that very discrepancy used quite often to utterly refute our arguments and make us into fools. That flows into the second assumption you saw.

Assumption 2: The "obvious defence" is the only counterclaim. This assumption presupposes, for example, that everyone agrees with your interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Not everyone does. Since this assumption builds on Assumption 1, it also conveniently ignores what some can claim is the real reason that the other Levitical laws are specifically "suspended" (for lack of a better word that would apply to both sides of the discussion at this point)

As I said, I took the qiuck and easy way. I was not assuming that this is the only defence, simply the one I have seen most often in regard to our interpretation of the pertinent levitcal passages. Also, I in no way assume that everyon agrees with our interpretation. This defence is simply a quick and effective one often used and often securing victory in a debate (from what I have seen anyway).

Assumption 3: The New Testament specifically prohibits "homosexual acts."

At this point I have to wonder if you weren't being just a little dishonest in your request not to debate the scriptures that conservatives claim forbid homosexuality. When you know that I am being silent on an issue to honor a request that you made, you should not take that silence to indicate that we can make an assumption concerning that very issue and assume it is undisputed.

The fact of the matter is that I (and many other Christians) very much dispute that the passages in question (Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11) are about homosexuality at all, and in any case, it is clear that the focus of the passages are not on any of the individual sins listed, but on the Redemption provided by Jesus Christ.

While I accept full responsibilty for the other mistakes, I cannot do so in this case I am afraid. The fact is I never stated that the New Testament specifically prohibits homosexual acts. I said that is our position. This was absolutely not an declaration on the interpretation of NT texts but a statemtent of how one side views them.

Given that, I think I can affirm fully that my request to not debate in this thread was in no way dishonest. I did not, and do not want a debate here on the interpretation off the texts we believe show homosexuality to be sinful. I did in no way make any assumption that assumption based on your silence. It would be absolutely insane of me to think you agree with our interpretation. I prefer to think of myself as only slighty off-balance, not fully insane.

jamielindas · Jul 14, 2008

wow! I'm amazed! The quality of this discussion has jumped significantly!

Kudos to both Ollie and d2s for their intelligence and quality of discourse!

Just Curious . . .

When given the option, choose love and compassion

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Contributor

When given the option, choose love and compassion

When given the option, choose love and compassion

DMagoh

Guest

When given the option, choose love and compassion

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

When given the option, choose love and compassion

Christian Hedonist

Senior Member

Christian Hedonist

DMagoh

Guest

ChaliceThunder

Guest

Senior Member

Christian Hedonist

When given the option, choose love and compassion

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency