What exactly is a liberal Christian?

[Buck72]

This is it folks. Two men can violate each other orally and rectally and still be "holy".

Praise God huh?

No wonder the planet is going to hell...the church is in the driver's seat with this kind of rubbish!

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

When the participants are consenting adults, where is the "violation"?

Your prejudice is showing, I fear.

 

[Mousethief]

It occurs to me that "violation" here means "something I don't like" -- if we say a man "violated a woman vaginally" that would mean he raped her -- but rape, regardless of orientation, isn't holy so that can't be what Buck72 is referring to. He must mean that consensual sex between two men is "violation" -- something of an idiosyncratic definition, methinks.

 

[BarbB]

Thus, I reject all the trappings and superstitions often mistaken for salvation. I was not saved by a book of words; I was saved by the Living Word. I will not trade that for thousands of years of human interpretations.

.

I was upset when I asked the question and for that I do apologize!

Do I understand that you reject the Bible and fellowship of Christians in church? I'm really curious now, because I cannot reject the Bible or church or worship.

I was led to Jesus by God breaking me, not by a person. I responded to His call and was saved by Jesus. At the same time, I was DRIVEN to read the Bible and attend church. I have since been DRIVEN to change churches to find more fundamental worship and preaching. I was a class A LIBERAL who the Holy Spirit has made CONSERVATIVE.

And, if you would answer my question, what did you used to do that you do not do anymore? Not being personal, but has your behavior changed.

CHRISTI - your awesome post has been lost in the debate! For that I am sorry! It totally describes my story, margueritas and all! And I am so ready for our bridegroom to return!

 

[tulc]

[move] WELCOME TO CF Mousethief!! [/move]
tulc(hope you will be blessed here!)

 

[tulc]

Warning....rambling ahead:

I have to say something here, not only because it's important to me, but because it may be to someone else. Sometimes us Christians see someone who we feel is being disobedient to the God we love. We feel they are taking advantage of His mercy, laughing in the face of the One who means everything to us. We get angry, we stay that way. But when He looks at those people.......He remembers authorizing their existence. He remembers creating them in their mother's womb, listening for their first cry, watching their first step, pushing their first tooth through. He remembers courting them. With sunsets, soft mushy springtime grass, and the smell of rain. He can be shameless in His pursuit of us....using loving friends, funny jokes, and sexual pleasure with our husbands. He haunts us and stalks us and flirts with us.....until we KNOW that no matter what we do, it doesn't take away that longing. We can't drink enough marguaritas or have enough [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or stockpile enough knowledge or gather enough friends, to ever take away that longing we have. It's a longing for Him.
When people look at the Bible as a rule book, or instruction manual, they are missing the best part. THEY are the one's editing. There are rules, yes. But they are all about love for us. There is a thread woven throughout all the law, history, poetry, and prophesy......and the thread is love. Love culminating in Him coming incognito to rescue us, (after we were so dang stubborn time after time after time)......and He's coming back dressed to go. He's coming back to claim His beloved. His beloved is us. And His beloved is them.

Ramble on Sister! One of my all time favorite posts here on CF.
tulc(honored to be on the same board!)

 

[Buck72]

When the participants are consenting adults, where is the "violation"?

Your prejudice is showing, I fear.

Bigot: A Conservative winning an argument with a liberal.

Show me in scripture anywhere that refers to "consenting adults". Wait, on second thought nevermind, you cannot see that over 130 verses lay it out clearly enough that "free sex" is destestable to a Holy God.

Perhaps the word of God is being misconstrued by 'ol nemisis, evil conservative YEC Buck72 once again, or perhaps this part can be written off to "temple prostitues only" - good grief.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

Rom 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Rom 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

Rom 1:31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

Rom 1:32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Hey Karl, help me out here bro, my conservative, fundamental YEC mind, as closed at it is, cannot see past the OBVIOUS FACT that God has a problem with sin...to include homosexuality. Or does the word not apply here either?

 

[Buck72]

I agree with Rev Dawson. Which am I? Stupid or a liar? Come on, out with it. Seeing as you're so willing to throw stones which one are you going to throw at me?

I don't wish to throw stones at Karl, just the stuff that you argue to be acceptable to God with ZERO biblical support, and not only that, but a massive biblical argument to the contrary. I know that you are not stupid, but you'll need to figure the other part out for yourself.

Dawson is a liar. And will bear the guilt of propogating lies. My question for him is whether he believes God to be tolerant of pedophilia, or group sex. Why not? The arguments for gay marriage being as what is "mutually beneficial" could be carried even further to propose marriage between 3 people...what's next? What else did the architects of the faith NOT know was permissible?

Now I know why so many "leaders" in the church were soft on pedophile priests...they saw nothing detestable about it at all.

No. Like you see it. Don't confuse "I think" with "It is".

The Bible "IS" - what I "think" is arbitrary. I'm not arguing Buck's ideas, as if I could take credit for them...I'm arguing scripture as it is read off the paper its printed on.

Now that is out of a horse's back passage.

It's called sarcasm. What sins can we get away with, and just what are the sins God is REALLY serious about?

Spend a moment in Romans ch. 3 and then get back to me about this "what I think it says" business. The knowledge of sin comes through the word of God - not the word of Karl, Buck, or this (ir)Reverend Dawson.

That is under debate. That is unfortunately what you refuse to recognise. You think it's a sin from your reading of Scripture, therefore everyone has to agree with you or they're a liar or stupid. And you wonder why we complain that conservatives are bigoted?

Bigoted? Toward what? Christ!? Amen!! O that all the church would be bigoted toward Christ that we would exclude this trash that the world serves us; rotten doctrines, lies from the stomach of hell by which the world will be judged on that Day.

Karl - no one needs to worry about agreeing with Buck. How many times do i have to tell you, it is not Buck in the dock here...CHRIST IS IN THE DOCK OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE WORLD. Ever read C.S. Lewis? He was a bigoted conservative 'fundy' too.

Joh 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Rom 3:3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

Rom 3:4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED."

Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)

Rom 3:6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world?

Nonsense. It's a statement of what you think is or isn't sin. Unfortunately, you cannot help but insist everyone else must have the same opinions as you.

If I quote Buck...that is of Buck, and open to critique - fire away. But if I quote GOD, using the contextual elements of the faith in the WORD OF GOD, then it is no longer what Buck thinks, nor is it Buck's opinion.

A common fallacy I see in debating liberals is that they turn matters to the source of the information, rather than the information itself. "What you think...", "In your opinion".

Don't blame the messenger for the message. Look at the message. Ever here the term: "Don't shoot the messenger?".

 

[James Sez]

The Bible "IS" - what I "think" is arbitrary. I'm not arguing Buck's ideas, as if I could take credit for them...I'm arguing scripture as it is read off the paper its printed on.

Nope, you are arguing Buck's interpretation of scripture so feel free to take credit for your ideas.

Ever read C.S. Lewis? He was a bigoted conservative 'fundy' too.

Lewis had a decidedly non-conservative view of scripture.

If I quote Buck...that is of Buck, and open to critique - fire away. But if I quote GOD, using the contextual elements of the faith in the WORD OF GOD, then it is no longer what Buck thinks, nor is it Buck's opinion.

I'll give the this much Mr. Buck, in my mind you are the very definition of the most of the conservatives that I have known in my past and see here at CF. You have a inflexible, single-minded devotion to your understanding of Christianity and you wield it like a baseball bat, all in the name of Jesus. Whack Whack

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Bigot: A Conservative winning an argument with a liberal.

Nope. Bigotry is insisting that other people must come to the same conclusions as you, perhaps by suggesting that if they don't they are either dishonest or stupid, for example. Fortunately, my regard for your opinions is plummeting like a barometer in a hurricane, so your attacks on me and my faith do not hurt.

Show me in scripture anywhere that refers to "consenting adults". Wait, on second thought nevermind, you cannot see that over 130 verses lay it out clearly enough that "free sex" is destestable to a Holy God.

Find out where I advocated free sex.

Perhaps the word of God is being misconstrued by 'ol nemisis, evil conservative YEC Buck72 once again, or perhaps this part can be written off to "temple prostitues only" - good grief.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

Rom 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Rom 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

Rom 1:31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

Rom 1:32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Hey Karl, help me out here bro, my conservative, fundamental YEC mind, as closed at it is, cannot see past the OBVIOUS FACT that God has a problem with sin...to include homosexuality. Or does the word not apply here either?

I'll try, although I doubt you really want to be "helped out". The passage is about idolatry. Paul's argument is:

1) People reject the true God and worship the creation
2) They get into all kinds of weird rites - such as fertility rites involving ritualistic sex - in the persuit of their false religion.
3) As a result they are filled "with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, etc. etc.

Does this sound like a condemnation of a faithful committed same-sex relationship? Because it doesn't to me. That is my exegesis.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I don't wish to throw stones at Karl, just the stuff that you argue to be acceptable to God with ZERO biblical support, and not only that, but a massive biblical argument to the contrary. I know that you are not stupid, but you'll need to figure the other part out for yourself.

Ah. I'm a liar. Nice to know. No. YOU are the liar. You are falsely accusing me. And you know that that contravenes on of the 10 commandments. Repentance time?

Dawson is a liar. And will bear the guilt of propogating lies.

Ditto.

My question for him is whether he believes God to be tolerant of pedophilia

Now you resort to the incredibly offensive equation of homosexuality with paedophilia. Fie on you. For the billionth time - there is no comparison! Paedophilia is abusive, involving a party that cannot give informed consent. There is no comparison with homosexuality.

or group sex. Why not? The arguments for gay marriage being as what is "mutually beneficial" could be carried even further to propose marriage between 3 people...what's next? What else did the architects of the faith NOT know was permissible?

Because we are not trying to reject the entire corpus of received Christian wisdom - which is that monogamous faithful life-long relationships are to be valued. Threesomes are not monogamous!

Now I know why so many "leaders" in the church were soft on pedophile priests...they saw nothing detestable about it at all.

False witness again.

The Bible "IS" - what I "think" is arbitrary. I'm not arguing Buck's ideas, as if I could take credit for them...I'm arguing scripture as it is read off the paper its printed on.

But as I've pointed out, owing to translational and cultural difficulties it is not as simple as "reading off the paper it's printed on". Biblical scholarship is essential. Romans was not written to you, Buck, it was written to a bunch of new Christians in Rome nearly 2000 years ago. You have to bear this in mind when reading it.

It's called sarcasm. What sins can we get away with, and just what are the sins God is REALLY serious about?

He's concerned with all of them. But we are debating what is a sin, not whether God's concerned about it. You beg the question.

Spend a moment in Romans ch. 3 and then get back to me about this "what I think it says" business. The knowledge of sin comes through the word of God - not the word of Karl, Buck, or this (ir)Reverend Dawson.

Jesus said it came through the Holy Spirit. If it comes from the word of God anyway, why does your interpretation of it carry more weight than mine, or Rev Dawson's?

Bigoted? Toward what? Christ!? Amen!! O that all the church would be bigoted toward Christ that we would exclude this trash that the world serves us; rotten doctrines, lies from the stomach of hell by which the world will be judged on that Day.

There's no point carrying on. I've said my final piece. I don't want to lead you any further into sins of false witness and judgementalism.

Karl - no one needs to worry about agreeing with Buck. How many times do i have to tell you, it is not Buck in the dock here...CHRIST IS IN THE DOCK OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE WORLD. Ever read C.S. Lewis? He was a bigoted conservative 'fundy' too.

I've read a lot of his stuff. He seems remarkably liberal in some matters. He certainly had no time for your YECism, for example, deeming it a matter of supreme unimportance.

[quote[Joh 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Rom 3:3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

Rom 3:4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED."

Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)

Rom 3:6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? [/quote]
Begging the question. I do not reject Christ's words. I reject your interpretation of some Scriptures. There is a difference.

If I quote Buck...that is of Buck, and open to critique - fire away. But if I quote GOD, using the contextual elements of the faith in the WORD OF GOD, then it is no longer what Buck thinks, nor is it Buck's opinion.

The use you put Scriptures to is your opinion. The meaning you derive from them is your opinion. The translational whims you deem themselves Holy Writ are most certainly your opinion. Your opinion is that malakoi means the same as "homosexual" today. My opinion is that it doesn't.

A common fallacy I see in debating liberals is that they turn matters to the source of the information, rather than the information itself. "What you think...", "In your opinion".

And a common fallacy I see in debating conservatives is that for the the Bible is the end of discussion rather than the beginning.

Don't blame the messenger for the message. Look at the message. Ever here the term: "Don't shoot the messenger?".

Yes. But when the messenger insists on his particular spin on the message he brings, one has to address the messenger. But as I say, this matter is now closed as far as I'm concerned because it has about as much point as a chocolate fireguard.

 

[Buck72]

Nope, you are arguing Buck's interpretation of scripture so feel free to take credit for your ideas

Compare my simple post of Romans 1 to the liberal blather that Karl spun into it and tell me who is ADDING their interpretation to it!?

Lewis had a decidedly non-conservative view of scripture.

Lewis' works have been epoch-making for me. Funny I turned out so fundamentally conservative while in almost unconditional agreement with Mr. Lewis, and yet I cannot seem to reach square one with any of you, and vice-versa.

I'll give the this much Mr. Buck, in my mind you are the very definition of the most of the conservatives that I have known in my past and see here at CF. You have a inflexible, single-minded devotion to your understanding of Christianity and you wield it like a baseball bat, all in the name of Jesus. Whack Whack

Well bravo James - how about some of you liberal types try using the WORD OF GOD instead of your own view of what it is God says and doesn't say.

When it comes to point matter validation, I'm the only one playing by the rules - Oh, but I bear the brunt of "bad christian" for being about my Master's business in seeking the purified glorification of His church, and its mission to reach the billions of walking dead with the light of God.

Liberals make more about what they imagine God to make of them, rather than what they should be doing; making much of God for Who He is.

That was from Lewis BTW.

 

[Buck72]

Ah. I'm a liar. Nice to know. No. YOU are the liar. You are falsely accusing me. And you know that that contravenes on of the 10 commandments. Repentance time?

I must be cutting close to the mark here to draw this type of response. Hey, if I was totally off track, it wouldn't matter would it?

You are accusing me of being a liar - SHOW ME KARL, WHERE HAVE I LIED!? DON'T JUST SIT THERE AND VENT YOUR RAGE AT ME MAN -- SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE LIED AND I WILL EAT MY WORDS!!!!!!

But you cannot show me. Neither can you demonstrate ANYWHERE in my posts where I have "called you a liar". Here's my post just for the record:

I don't wish to throw stones at Karl, just the stuff that you argue to be acceptable to God with ZERO biblical support, and not only that, but a massive biblical argument to the contrary. I know that you are not stupid, but you'll need to figure the other part out for yourself.

Now you resort to the incredibly offensive equation of homosexuality with paedophilia. Fie on you. For the billionth time - there is no comparison! Paedophilia is abusive, involving a party that cannot give informed consent. There is no comparison with homosexuality.

I asked you a question - where does it stop? If gay sex is okay, why not animal sex? Just how sick does one's mind have to be to get beyond the liberal definition of "too far"? From what I see, many liberals dialate their "tolerance" wider and wider to accomodate the "broad road of destruction" right into their very hearts and minds. They do this by IGNORING THE WORD OF GOD, thus they are left to their own devices, and must either:

A. Repent
B. Justify themselves

Oh please dear Christian brother, do not fail to examine yourself. If I'm wrong SO WHAT, I simply lose face in CF...big deal. But if the word of God that I'm contending is right...you'd do well to at least extend me the courtesy of mutual respect as a fellow heir to the promises of God that will not be content to sit back while millions move forward with a loose foundation.

Because we are not trying to reject the entire corpus of received Christian wisdom - which is that monogamous faithful life-long relationships are to be valued. Threesomes are not monogamous!

Many gay marriage advocates will soon take up that position - I'm watching the sinkhole grow deeper in this world. I'm thankful that you see that too - just checking. Now, where in scripture does the "monogamous, faithful, life-long relationship" replace MARRIAGE? AND, where does it tell me that I can disregrard all of the scripture (and "natural order" to borrow a means of understanding from the theo-evo bunch that argues the cosmos invalidates the "six day" creation) that homosexuality is "normal" and permissible by God?

False witness again.

Says who? Prove it Karl! C'mon I'm playing baseball here, not Nerf! People will live and die by these things and you just keep arguing biblical truth with: "false witness"?

But as I've pointed out, owing to translational and cultural difficulties it is not as simple as "reading off the paper it's printed on". Biblical scholarship is essential. Romans was not written to you, Buck, it was written to a bunch of new Christians in Rome nearly 2000 years ago. You have to bear this in mind when reading it.

Oh, so it doesn't apply - dang! I guess I can start being more tolerant of ga**...oh, hang on...this just in:

Heb 13:7 Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Heb 13:9a Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings;

So then we agree that of course Romans was written to Roman Christians during Paul's time, but the word of God doesn't change, it is forever, and it is inspired by God, it is like fire, and a hammer that smashes a rock, it is living and active sharper than any two-edged sword; I could go on and on and on!!!

Jesus said it came through the Holy Spirit. If it comes from the word of God anyway, why does your interpretation of it carry more weight than mine, or Rev Dawson's?

Where is the holy spirit? How do you recognize Him? Does He move through the word of God? Or does He move through our FEELINGS?

I've read a lot of his stuff. He seems remarkably liberal in some matters. He certainly had no time for your YECism, for example, deeming it a matter of supreme unimportance.

Have you read the things he does deem important? Holiness is one of them, that drives me on everytime I read his writings. He provokes me to fear the Holiness of God and my wretchedness in contrast, to grip the bloody post and know that my best efforts are nailed upon its notted mass.

This is my LORD, my Master, the One whose word I hope, the One whose faith I will face death to preserve, humiliation to behold, and the loss of everything I hold dear in my life to know. I do not give a cold d**m about what any man thinks of me so long as I see the scarred face of my God, and I'm sorry my brother, but He does not tolerate sin. According to the clarity of His word, He does not endorse homosexuality, lying, adultery, sensuality, or ANY kind of sin before His Holy eyes...He is too pure to behold our festering attempts to justify myself, and you know something? I stand right next to you because I am no better than any of us. I know the word of God and in that knowledge I FIGHT my flesh to carry out the obediance of the faith, and I fail, again, and again, and again. But He keeps pace with me and never turns away His face.

You misunderstand my zeal, and I know that I miscommunicate it. Please pardon my sense of urgency. I feel a burning fire of conviction that the broad road of destruction that our LORD Christ makes mention of is ablaze with BILLIONS who think they are alright.

What are we, the church to do about it?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

[breaking my self-imposed retirement from this thread to explain]

Buck - you said anyone who concludes from Scripture that homosexuality isn't a sin is either stupid or a liar.

You know I do so conclude.

You said I'm not stupid. Therefore, you must think I'm a liar. It's not difficult to work out.

And that is itself a lie, as is your calling the Rev. a liar. That's what I'm calling you on.

 

[Calvanist]

I am confused as to why we are even discussing this when the Bibel is so explicitly clear on the issue. Homosexuality is wrong, period. Don't bother going into finicky little translation discrepencies. God meant for man and women to be together, shouldn't that settle it?

 

[seebs]

That passage bears a stunning similarity to Job 36:1-14. Of interest, in particular, is that both passages, near their ends, refer to temple prostitution.

 

[seebs]

I am confused as to why we are even discussing this when the Bibel is so explicitly clear on the issue. Homosexuality is wrong, period. Don't bother going into finicky little translation discrepencies. God meant for man and women to be together, shouldn't that settle it?

A useful way to consider this: If two people disagree on whether or not something is clear, it's not clear.

It is hard to imagine how homosexuality, in and of itself, can be any more right or wrong than any other inborn characteristic. You could make the case that homosexual activity is sinful, and that some people are born with an inclination towards that sin; however, claiming that it is sinful to have such an inclination is very shoddy theology, at best.

 

[Arikereba]

If I'm wrong SO WHAT, I simply lose face in CF...big deal. But if the word of God that I'm contending is right...you'd do well to at least extend me the courtesy of mutual respect as a fellow heir to the promises of God that will not be content to sit back while millions move forward with a loose foundation.

So what?

If you're wrong, isn't there the possibility that many people who might otherwise have chosen to be Christians will not, because they just can't believe that a loving God would condemn monogamous and loving relationships, or ask people to utterly disregard scientific evidence, or force people to live in ways that make them miserable? And if you believe that you have to be Christian to be saved, doesn't that mean that those people won't be saved? (I'm not sure if you're a Calvinist; the point is moot if you are, I suppose).

I think the consequences for being wrong are just as serious no matter who's wrong.

 

[Katmando]

I'll give the this much Mr. Buck, in my mind you are the very definition of the most of the conservatives that I have known in my past and see here at CF. You have a inflexible, single-minded devotion to your understanding of Christianity and you wield it like a baseball bat, all in the name of Jesus. Whack Whack

In my mind Buck is looking at the word of God. I have read many of his posts and he has firm beliefs and people critisize him for that. You have your beliefs and he has his. Read closely to his posts he does not say "I think you are this or that" He is pointing out scripture to back up his beliefs. If you can not use the word of God you have no basis for anything! Then it just your opinion. If Buck is wrong show him where he is wrong. Others have and he is quickly to apologies or corrects himself. Yes people will interpet scripture different, but remember there is only one truth. I would bet, Buck is open to an honest debate on your interpitation but it seems most that disagree with are not capable to do this. They will just flare back with opinions. I would hope that any Christian reading these posts would side with the word of God over others opinions.

Buck is not forcing you to agree with him or judging others. He is just stating scripture and you can take at as you will but our judgement is coming.

<><

 

[James Sez]

In my mind Buck is looking at the word of God. I have read many of his posts and he has firm beliefs and people critisize him for that. You have your beliefs and he has his. Read closely to his posts he does not say "I think you are this or that" He is pointing out scripture to back up his beliefs. If you can not use the word of God you have no basis for anything! Then it just your opinion. If Buck is wrong show him where he is wrong. Others have and he is quickly to apologies or corrects himself. Yes people will interpet scripture different, but remember there is only one truth. I would bet, Buck is open to an honest debate on your interpitation but it seems most that disagree with are not capable to do this. They will just flare back with opinions. I would hope that any Christian reading these posts would side with the word of God over others opinions.

Buck is not forcing you to agree with him or judging others. He is just stating scripture and you can take at as you will but our judgement is coming.

<><

Thank you to both you and buck for responding. I have had a poor record of getting people to actually respond to my posts. I'm simply pointing out that the Bible is filtered by personal interpretation that may or may not be correct. I think we agree on this. You can't just say, "I am speaking for God as it is written in the scriptures" You have to add "...as I understand it from my conservative, sectarian viewpoint" In other words, the "Word of God" and "Opinions" can never be mutually exclusive.

As for the one truth of scripture that you speak of, A few posts ago Christi thankfully rambled on about God's love for us.