Redefining God's Word

Zaac said:

Sounds like something Uber said once. But my apologies also

Click to expand...

Don't you think that if you were going to make a thinly-veiled personal attack against me, it would more proper if I were active on the thread so I could defend myself?

I don't appreciate your comment one bit -- and frankly, I think God would agree with me that what you did was SIN.

Zaac said:

Yep. When I'm quoting Scripture, it really shows that God's Word is true

Click to expand...

So if you use Scripture to offend someone, the fact that they're offended (or may even become angry with what you've done) demonstrates that you're right because they were offended?

Matthew 27:5 "Judas threw down the pieces of silver in the sanctuary, and departed. He went away and hanged himself."

Luke 10:37 "Jesus said, “Go and do likewise.”'

If you're offended by the way I used these two Scriptures (from the Gospels), then I guess that would prove I'm right!

Zaac said:

And have said what the sin is several times.



You've got me confused with someone. And have you seen me back down from what I said? What I said about you, I intended to say.



Show me where I have ever accused you of committing immoral sinful acts with someone of the same sex. Like i said if that were the case, I wouldn't have any problem saying that.

Your immorality has nothing to do with sex, at least not that you've given testimony to.

Click to expand...

You just did a short time ago. These are your words from a few posts back: "We've already discussed your immoral, sinful acts that result as your actions with those of the same sex."

Now you deny that you wrote this?

In all of our conversations, you have never said what "sin" you have repeatedly accused me of committing. You need to be honest. This dodging and pretending don't add to your credibility. You are developing a credibility gap, to use a 60s term.

Zaac said:

"For in those days Israel had no king, so everyone did whatever he wanted to-- whatever seemed right in his own eyes." Judges 17:6


"The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice." Proverbs 12:15

It's the nature of humans to reject God's truth and establish our own truth because we don't want to be accountable to God. We want to be our own God and follow the compass of our feelings. Then according to our wisdom and not God's, "We can justify our every deed, but God looks at our motives." Proverbs 21:2

Click to expand...

agreed.... however when the oppionions are as divided as they are today it's very hard to see clearly who's telling the truth! And don't say "just read God's word" because people have and we always come to disagreements on what that word from God is actully saying. So yes I agree...... but finding the truth is alot harder than it seems. We actully have to "work" to find the truth. A totally new concept for our drive-through culture.

So why is it that when it comes to homosexuality and the committing of fornicative homosexual acts, so many "purported" Christians continue to either reject God's Word as his Word or they continue to research a word or concept until they can find something that they feel justifies this sin?

Click to expand...

awwww.... and here's a perfect example! Homosexauty is clearly one of God's least concerns! For one Jesus never even enters the subject! Not once.... Paul enters the subject but he also lists "disrespecting your parents" among others as being just as bad! If you gonna chasten people for homosexaulity than you gotta bring the entire law into focas. If you bring the entire law into focas it won't be long before YOU feel condemned. It's alot easier to just show "sinners" some grace. It's clear that scripture teaches that if we insist on living by the law than we will be judged by that law.... all of it. And trust me my freind. this isn't something you want happen. If you preach the law and condemn others do you honestly expect God to NOT condemn you?? It's really only fair isn't it....

Masked_Chris said:

agreed.... however when the oppionions are as divided as they are today it's very hard to see clearly who's telling the truth! And don't say "just read God's word" because people have and we always come to disagreements on what that word from God is actully saying. So yes I agree...... but finding the truth is alot harder than it seems. We actully have to "work" to find the truth. A totally new concept for our drive-through culture.




awwww.... and here's a perfect example! Homosexauty is clearly one of God's least concerns! For one Jesus never even enters the subject! Not once.... Paul enters the subject but he also lists "disrespecting your parents" among others as being just as bad! If you gonna chasten people for homosexaulity than you gotta bring the entire law into focas. If you bring the entire law into focas it won't be long before YOU feel condemned. It's alot easier to just show "sinners" some grace. It's clear that scripture teaches that if we insist on living by the law than we will be judged by that law.... all of it. And trust me my freind. this isn't something you want happen. If you preach the law and condemn others do you honestly expect God to NOT condemn you?? It's really only fair isn't it....

Click to expand...

Good post. And welcome to you.

UberLutheran said:

I wonder if that might have anything to do with the fact that your "witness" simply is not working here; and if anything, is turning people OFF to the Gospel?

I'm glad I already believe: it's my experience that practitioners of "sanctified slander" and "nasty-nice" and "I'm only telling you 'God's truth' inlove" can be real faith-killers.

I already know you're going to say this post is cynical. Seems like any post which challenges you directly is either "cynical" or "trying to justify an immoral lifestyle" and frankly, I just don't give you much credibility anymore.

Click to expand...

He would rather have us hot or cold. I think i'd rather have someone reject the whole truth than be
bought in with a false gospel.

Masked_Chris said:

agreed.... however when the oppionions are as divided as they are today it's very hard to see clearly who's telling the truth! And don't say "just read God's word" because people have and we always come to disagreements on what that word from God is actully saying. So yes I agree...... but finding the truth is alot harder than it seems. We actully have to "work" to find the truth. A totally new concept for our drive-through culture.




awwww.... and here's a perfect example! Homosexauty is clearly one of God's least concerns! For one Jesus never even enters the subject! Not once.... Paul enters the subject but he also lists "disrespecting your parents" among others as being just as bad! If you gonna chasten people for homosexaulity than you gotta bring the entire law into focas. If you bring the entire law into focas it won't be long before YOU feel condemned. It's alot easier to just show "sinners" some grace. It's clear that scripture teaches that if we insist on living by the law than we will be judged by that law.... all of it. And trust me my freind. this isn't something you want happen. If you preach the law and condemn others do you honestly expect God to NOT condemn you?? It's really only fair isn't it....

Click to expand...

Sin is sin. Sexual Immorality, those who disobey their parents, sorcery, etc. It's why we need Jesus. While it's not the worst sin in the world, it still damns us to hell..
I know what you mean on the condemned part though, Not hard thinking i'm being condemned on this whole "keeping the sabbath" issue because I really don't know what I should do about it.

If I didn't love, I wouldn't give truth in the face of lies.

Click to expand...

Hmmm so it was "love" when you said

"We've already discussed your immoral, sinful acts that result as your actions with those of the same sex."

Click to expand...

tulc(just curious)

And you just did a tulc. You assumed I said somehing and interpolated a response based upon something I didn't say.

Click to expand...

Ahh! So you don't think Ohioprof has done anything wrong? Good news indeed!
tulc(and all this time I thought you were arguing something you weren't) :

Zaac said:

Nope. She and I have discussed in the past what she is doing contrary to God's Word .

Click to expand...

You have never answered my question about what "sin" you imagine that I have been committing. I have asked you over and over, and you have never answered the question. Now, after you have accused me of "sin" again, you still won't answer. You've made another hit and run accusation.

Zaac said:

I'm still here so where is the running?

Click to expand...

You run by refusing to answer my question after you accuse me of committing a "sin."

So, Zaac, I will ask you again. What did you mean when you said these words: "We've already discussed your immoral, sinful acts that result as your actions with those of the same sex."

If, as you claim, you were not referring to sex, what "immoral, sinful acts" were you talking about that I supposedly engaged or engage in?

Zaac said:

My point with the part that you highlighted is that when it comes to this particular issue, people aren't doing that. People are presenting canned researched responses that you can get from any pro-gay site that attempts to answer the question "what does the Bible really say about homosexuality."

And like the folks who first devised the responses, folks are approaching God's Word as a tool to, as you said, support their belief INSTEAD of using God's Word to see what He SAYS.

It's a built in bias that will always manipulate the Word to say what people want it to say.

And this is why I have said again and again, dealing with what the text ACTUALLY says, there is not a soul that can show that the commiting of same-sex acts is EVER right either by what the text SAYS or does not need to say because it says something else that covers the issue.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are dead wrong. At least about me. And, I presume, also about most of the posters here. In my case, as a conservative Christian I accepted the claim that the Bible indicated that homosexuality was a sin. It was not a sin I was tempted with, so I never searched specifically on the topic. When I came to one of the "anti-gay" passages I read it much as you do because I assumed that the rest of Scripture supported that understanding.

Politically I am in favor of extending human rights to all humans, and so at that time I made a distinction between "gay" (the orientation) and "homosexual" (the sexual activity). Gradualy my political and religious philosophies on the subject were so stretched that I felt it was necessary to search the Scriptures for guidance. Notice, I said for guidance. I was open to whatever God wanted to teach me, and I was still pre-disposed to believe that it would probably condemn homosexuality.

I discovered that there are only four to eight (depending on how you group the less than 20 primary passages) arguments against homosexual activity.

I discovered that the "Sodom" argument resolves into claiming that gang rape as a political act of terrorism is morally equivalent to sexual attraction. Jude's statement in verse 7 of his epistle is a little problematical in this regard, but it needs to be related to the whole teaching on Sodom to be understood. And both Ezekiel and Jesus wrote of the sins of Sodom, but homosexual activity was not a highlighted concern.

I discovered that the "Abomination" argument relies on two verses (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) which only condemn one partner in one specific sexual activity under certain circumstances -- that is if he is under the Holiness Code part of the Law. In principle, the ban could be expanded to include the other partner, and other related acts, and other circumstances but these expansions are not called for in the verses themselves. To have the force of a command from God, rather than a volutary "fasting," other passages of the Bible must reinforce the suggestion.

I discovered that in two of his epistles (1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:8-11), Paul referenced a generalized list of sinners which included what appears to be a reference to those who broke the ban of Leviticus 18:22, but that none of the specific sins on the list were the subject of those letters, but rather the purpose of the Law was: how it can teach us our sins, but cannot help us atone for them. Indeed, we cannot atone for them at all. Which is why we need Jesus.

I discovered that in his letter to the Romans, Paul was referencing the views of various Greek philosophers (especially Plato and the Stoics) when he spoke of men who "burned in their lust one toward another; men with men..." And that the reference was to the Greek idea that sex should not involve very much passion, but rather always have a purpose. So the condemnation was on the excess passion (burning in lust) rather than the male partner. The homoerotic aspects were included in Plato's original statement because it was more obvious that the sex was for pleasure than for purpose.

I discovered that all of the claims that other passages re-inforce the ban on homosexual acts depend on the understanding from the more specific passages forbid homosexual activity. While there seems to be a general understanding that sexual activity must be carefully regulated (for example, restricted to marriage), there is nothing to indicate that except for the specific circumstances of the Leviticus ban, that the Bible is concerned about homosexual activity at all, as long as it is not adultery or fornication.

I discovered that the Bible has no negative examples of homosexual activity at all (which is probably why the Sodom incident is improperly portrayed as one). For most sins, the Bible gives examples of both evil pagans committing them and of Israelites committing them, so that we can learn from their example.

I discovered that the claim that there are no positive examples of homo-romantic relationships might be based on the biased assumption that the Bible condemns them. I learned that many claim that David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi, among others, are positive examples. I am not sure whether they are homo-romantic or merely homo-social, but I am open to either interpretation.