So you heard a Pastor was sent to prison...

[seebs]

On the other hand, I also see that it is a mistake to automatically assume that someone refering to the bible as "the word of God" is quilty of "bibliolitry".

Indeed. But calling it "the Word of God" is definitely shading into dangerous territory. Capitalized words are proper nouns, in English, and have specific meanings.

In the context of the original sermon, it seemed clearly to denote the Word in the sense that these ideas were prophecy, attributed directly to God and not to any human agency.

 

[sidhe]

Gods law is still in effect, but the penalty for transgressing it has been paid.

This is what Jesus meant when he said " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matt 5:17)

Where's the exegesis? You repeat the quote, which I previously demonstrated could be interpreted in another way. Demonstrate the validity of your interpretation.

The good news is that Christ bore the death penalty of transgressing the law

"He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."

Citation? I tend to disregard anything that's not in the gospels, simply because I've got a feeling that if Jesus meant something, he would have explained it. Or had a parable about it, at least.

Thus, demonstrate where Jesus said - himself - that he was acting as a sacrifice.

So therefore "avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." (Titus 3:9).

Hmmm...I don't think these are "foolish questions". You can't have a Levitical cafeteria.

If one is to turn from sins, then that would include all sins. You can't have a "free to sin" pass for some things, but not others. To imply that some sins were rendered tolerable by Jesus' death, but others remain abominations, is to lessen the importance of Jesus' death. Either everything is an abomination, or everything can be equally tolerated.

In other words, if one isn't repenting of eating pork, one shouldn't be expecting a homosexual to repent of being gay.

 

[wardpossy]

I believe the end is getting near, Lets not "get back " at those who do wrong, instead pray for them and let God handle it, Jeff

 

[repentandbelieve]

Thus, demonstrate where Jesus said - himself - that he was acting as a sacrifice.

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and [of] the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mark 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

 

[St. Worm2]

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and [of] the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mark 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

Hey R & B, I thought of a another place where Jesus tells us that He will be a sacrifice for us. Hope you don't mind if I chime in, and I hope this is what you are after Sidhe. I'll put it in context, and all of Christ's words will be in red.

"You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Mark 10: 42-45)

Hmmm, here are a couple more if you're interested. If this is not enough, just let me know! It's a lot of reading, but it seemed important to put them in context as well.

The Last Supper​

"He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is My body." And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God." After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away, because it is written, ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.’ But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee." (Mark 14:22-28)​

'The Parable of the Good Shepherd'​

​

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers." This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them. So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. "He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again." (John 10:1-18) ​

Yours and His,
David



​

 

[repentandbelieve]

Hey R & B, I thought of a another place where Jesus tells us that He will be a sacrifice for us. Hope you don't mind if I chime in, and I hope this is what you are after Sidhe. I'll put it in context, and all of Christ's words will be in red.

[/font][/color][/font][/color]

Hmmm, here are a couple more if you're interested. If this is not enough, just let me know! It's a lot of reading, but it seemed important to put them in context as well.




[/size]Yours and His,
David



[/left]

Thank you David.
Jesus said to the disciples, "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me". This serves as further evidence that Jesus had foreknowledge of His death on the cross. The cross was the instrument used to execute criminals in the most cruel and humiliating form of death.

His conversation with Nicodemus, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:14, 15) indicates that Jesus knew His death on the cross was part of the plan of redemption.

This great truth, that for our sakes Jesus not only gave his life, but that He also left the happiness and glory of heaven to suffer poverty, shame, cruel affliction and a terrible death on the cross should be enough to melt the hardest heart.

Let us contemplate upon His great sacrifice for us. And as we do, our love will be quickened and we will become more deeply imbued with His spirit.

 

[St. Worm2]

Hey SnowBear, you wrote:

Actually it is only about fifteen years of study not decades. genetics is still a terribly young field


***Whoops, you're right, I stand corrected. Thanks!

One of the earliest studies indicating sexual orientation is an inborn trait was the Bailey and Pillard study of the structure of the hypothalamus. The first study linking sexual oriention to genetics was in 1993. Dean Hamer, examining the family trees of gay men, noticed a pattern of inheritance through the maternal side; Hamer found gay men to have more maternal relatives who were gay than paternal relatives.

Dean Hamer et al, "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation" Science 261 (1993-JUL-16): pp 321-27.

***Oh yeah, I remember this study when it first hit the newsstands.

there are several thousand studies linking sexual orientation to genetics and/or intrinsic inborn factors. there are however no published studies even suggesting that sexual orientation is a choice or the result of some psychological, familial or socioeconomic factor.

***WOW, I had no idea that there have been "several thousand studies" over the last fifteen years. Of course, this kind'a supports the point I was trying to make (albeit poorly) in my last post, that after years and years of research, and thousands of studies, unbiased sources report there is, well, nothing to report! That there is nothing that even comes close to being conclusive evidence that genetics plays a role in creating an inborn disposition toward homosexual behavior, must less a complete orientation in that direction.

Even the researchers who are still trying to prove that there is some form of genetics at work here now say that it's much more complicated than simply a gene pool, that environmental factors play a HUGE role in the makeup of every imaginable kind of behavior. Dean Hamer himself stated:

"It is the same for every human behavior--environment matters for extroversion, smoking cigarettes, just about anything you can name." (from a 1999 Boston Globe article called "The Fading "Gay Gene")

Perhaps it's time to stop looking for answers where, apparently, none may be found, and start looking again into the "psychological, familial or socioeconomic" factors you mentioned above (though I have trouble believing ecomomic factors play much of a role). Of course, if studies like these can actually find the funding they need, the powers that be will need to allow the conclusions they draw to see the light of day ..

However one does not need to have sexual intercourse to be a homosexual or a heterosexual for that matter. Sexual orientation is independent of any behavior.

***True enough, however, while someone may 'feel' that they may be homosexual, no one TRULY designates themselves as "homosexual" until the deed is done ..

--David

 

[SnowBear]

WOW, I had no idea that there have been "several thousand studies" over the last fifteen years. Of course, this kind'a supports the point I was trying to make (albeit poorly) in my last post, that after years and years of research, and thousands of studies, unbiased sources report there is, well, nothing to report!

actually there is quite a lot to report. Finding a single gene is improbable a set of genes working together is more likely. Personally I hope such a set is never found.



The more telling half of all this is the complete lack of evidence for any other origin of homosexuality. The search for psychological, sociological, familial causes has been going on for over 100 years now and there is nothing, nadda, zip, zilch, zero evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is the result of any of these.

Perhaps it's time to stop looking for answers where, apparently, none may be found, and start looking again into the "psychological, familial or socioeconomic" factors you mentioned above (though I have trouble believing ecomomic factors play much of a role). Of course, if studies like these can actually find the funding they need, the powers that be will need to allow the conclusions they draw to see the light of day ..

as noted these have been going on and still are. but as yet not a scarp of evidence to suggest any other origin exists.

True enough, however, while someone may 'feel' that they may be homosexual, no one TRULY designates themselves as "homosexual" until the deed is done ..

don’t bet on that.

I self identified years before I got tackled by my first boyfriend. (we were on the same football team...sorry but I couldn’t resist the pun.)

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

In Sweden, just last year Ake Green a Pastor was sent to prison. His sentence, 30 days. Found guilty under Sweden's new HATE laws. But, have you read his sermon? Do you know what he said? Here it is, having been translated from Swedish into English.

SuperMama,
I am a advocate for the First Amendment and object to his being put in jail but that in no way translates to support for this ... I best not fill in the blank.

[SERMON
Of course, in the animal kingdom there are males and females, and in the botanical world there are also male and female plants; in neither the animal nor in plant life do [sexual] abnormalities occur.

In natural settings among non-human animals homosexuality, masturbation and (if you will forgive a bit of anthropomorphizing) rape occur.

Rather, every species stays with its own species.

Yes, and the vast majority of gay male humans only have sex with members of their own species too...

That is the way it is--until humans, in recent years, have stomped into this area with test tube fertilization and through cloning. Up until that point it has been as God has said that we should live.

I have to disagree, all those sinful hospitals have been allowing women to use pain killer during childbirth ...

Legalizing [domestic] partnerships between men and men, between woman and woman, it will simply create disasters--beyond comparison! We are already seeing the results of this. We see it through the spread of AIDS. Certainly, not all AIDS-infected individuals are homosexuals, but it came into existence because of this in the past.
[font=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]

[/font]
The mind boggles...
1) Lesbians have a much lower risk than heterosexuals of getting AIDS
2) AIDS came about most likely because of eating monkey brains and was almost certainly originally spread via heterosexual contact
3) Recognizing and nurturing loving long-term monogamous relationships would help stem the spread of STDs.

Here we read for the first time about homosexual men. All the men of Sodom openly spoke [of] and openly displayed their deviant sexual disposition.

I note that frequently in societies where the percentage of men who engage in sexual acts with other men is large (whatever that means) there is something driving it, male-male bonding needed because of a distorted social structure among certain Pacific tribes; the mentor-student relationships in the gymnasiums of Ancient Greece; master-slave relationships and an extreme pursuit of hedonism in the (later?) Roman upperclass; the percieved necessity to prove one's dominance in prison (clue: if you value your skin, do not call a prison inmate who has a "girlfriend", homosexual).

In cultures where such societal pressures don't exist the number of homosexuals is small (even if there is no great stigma attached).

The very fact that all the men of Sodom came out indicates that most of them were pursuing purely physical pleasure regardless of the gender of the victim.

The insistance of Lot and the Old Man in Judges 19 that their visitors not spend the night outdoors suggests they had an idea of what was coming.

The stories are about rape.

Why has this manner of living come about? Romans 1:21-28:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him,

So how exactly do you apply these verses to the many good Christians who find themselves sexually attracted to members of the same sex?

You can with your mouth babble about all sorts of things, but the heart will convict us. That is what the Bible passage is saying here. And in Romans 2:14-15:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

I am unable to read minds or hearts, but the indications I see are that the hearts of many gay and lesbian couples are filled with love. The fruits I see being borne are the fruits of loving support that help the couples bear fruit in the form of contributions to their communities, both secular and Christian.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Legalizing [domestic] partnerships between men and men, between woman and woman, it will simply create disasters--beyond comparison!

quick addendum, I was falling asleep last night when I realized I'd forgotten to address a related issue here: http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/media/same%20sex%20marriage%20briefing%20paper.htm
is entitled "Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage? Evidence from Scandinavia and the Netherlands"

Just before the footnotes are two graphs of marriage and divorce rates for various Scandinavian countries (with the years when their gay partnership laws were passed in parenthesis next to country's names). There are no jumps of any kind to be found correlated with the passing of those laws.

 

[seebs]

Er. Anyone who thinks that animals only try to mate with members of their own species ought to try owning a rabbit. Or a dog.

 

[Paul-martin]

Swedes. Pheh.

American.s Pheh.

Baptist Church i Topeka pastor Fred Phelps

**** = fa
gs

http://www.godhates****.com/main/sweden_tsunami_monument.html

http://www.godhates****.com/featured/sweden_royal_family.html

http://www.godhates****.com/main/green_monument.html

 

[Paul-martin]

a link who work .

http://rawstory.rawprint.com/1204/westboro_tsunami_statement_1230.php

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Okay, with some exegesis, Jesus pities the sinner, and hates the sin. You've established that. Does pity equate to love? I, personally, can pity people I don't particularly care for, and may even be willing to help them out if they're in a particularly bad spot. But assistance out of pity isn't the same as assistance out of love.

It is your interpretation that identifies Jesus's emotion as "pity".
The Bible, on the other hand, has Jesus stating "love thy neighbor" and "love thy enemy".

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

[Åke Green speaking]
[snip]

Sorry, but 5 minutes worth of lip service to love after 20+ minutes of spewing lies and prejudice driven speculation doesn't cut it.