What part of 'ALL' cannot be understood?

[blueapplepaste]

kopilo, the Bible is opposed to homosexuality. I don't see why it's radical to oppose it's condonement in our schools.

Because we're not a theocracy and the Bible holds no authority in government. If you want to condemn in private school, then go ahead, just don't expect to use any of my tax money to discriminate and to teach intolerance.

 

[RealityCheck]

RealityCheck, ironic name.

What a vague and left-handed remark that says absolutely nothing.

 

[Polycarp1]

kopilo, the Bible is opposed to homosexuality. I don't see why it's radical to oppose it's condonement in our schools.

Except that that is not true. The Bible is clearly opposed to specific homosexual acts -- and what particular acts, under what circumstances, are currently and still hotly debated. And it's opposed to some specific attitude related to homosexual lust in a particular context, as exemplified in Romans.

But adducing the idea that "the Bible is opposed to homosexuality" as that term is used today, is very much eisegesis, reading stuff back into Scripture.

Our Lord and Savior was very explicit on the proper behavior of a Christian towards a gay person, in the Gospels. Of course, He did not specifically single out gay people, but they're included in His teaching.

As for the passage at hand, Seebs is 100% right. Quoting that particular verse, in that particular translation, to prove a point about "liberals" and "homosexuality," is violating the very principle of how Scripture itself says to apply Scripture -- and for a very good reason.

Context is everything, and going back to the literal wording of the original Greek writing of II Timothy 3, that particular verse is an erroneous and false translation of what Paul (or the person writing in his behalf, see Romans 16:22) set to paper.

And that, in my opinion, should give anyone who takes the "I take it at face value" stance pause.

My classic example is that it's written out very clearly in Scripture, "There is no God" (Psalms 14:1b). In context, it's what "the fool has said in his heart." But you cannot deny that those four words, in that order, are a part of Scripture.

Therefore, in my strong opinion, it's absolutely necessary to take any supposed proof text and read it in context. And in this case, it's Paul advising Timothy to trust in the Tanakh, the Jewish Scriptures, for his own strength and peace of mind and as a tool for use in evangelizing other Jews and God-fearers. And what we have here is really an appositive, a subordinate clause, in the middle of a long sentence, peeled out and supplied with translator's-opinion verbs to make it a standalone sentence. And then pulling a bait-and-switch from "Scriptures=Tanakh" in the opinion of Paul and Timothy to "Scriptures=Protestant Bible" in the opinion of the present-day translator and reader.

And using a mistranslation of a single verse in Paul lifted out of context and supplied with that bait-and-switch change of meaning to instruct one to go against the direct commandment of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, well, respect for forum rules bars me from saying what I really feel about that.

 

[kopilo]

kopilo, the Bible is opposed to homosexuality. I don't see why it's radical to oppose it's condonement in our schools.

I don't share your view of the bible and I know a good number of other Christian scholars who also do not. So stop miss-representing Christianity and accept there is more then one way to interpret different verses, passages etc in the bible on homosexuality.

If people were promoting homosexuality in school, then I would be against it but until there is a line to say that teaching acceptance of something is promoting it then I still believe that acceptation is a better way to deal with differences then intolerance and tolerance for humanity.

It seems to me to be radical to demote homosexuals and homosexual information.
Based on that you would rather see less homosexuals, is it not better to inform rather then to have past mistakes repeated?

By all means I do not mean for every country to follow Spain in their decision but rather to watch and see if it comes to any good.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Except that that is not true. The Bible is clearly opposed to specific homosexual acts -- and what particular acts, under what circumstances, are currently and still hotly debated. And it's opposed to some specific attitude related to homosexual lust in a particular context, as exemplified in Romans.

But adducing the idea that "the Bible is opposed to homosexuality" as that term is used today, is very much eisegesis, reading stuff back into Scripture.

Our Lord and Savior was very explicit on the proper behavior of a Christian towards a gay person, in the Gospels. Of course, He did not specifically single out gay people, but they're included in His teaching.

As for the passage at hand, Seebs is 100% right. Quoting that particular verse, in that particular translation, to prove a point about "liberals" and "homosexuality," is violating the very principle of how Scripture itself says to apply Scripture -- and for a very good reason.

Context is everything, and going back to the literal wording of the original Greek writing of II Timothy 3, that particular verse is an erroneous and false translation of what Paul (or the person writing in his behalf, see Romans 16:22) set to paper.

And that, in my opinion, should give anyone who takes the "I take it at face value" stance pause.

My classic example is that it's written out very clearly in Scripture, "There is no God" (Psalms 14:1b). In context, it's what "the fool has said in his heart." But you cannot deny that those four words, in that order, are a part of Scripture.

Therefore, in my strong opinion, it's absolutely necessary to take any supposed proof text and read it in context. And in this case, it's Paul advising Timothy to trust in the Tanakh, the Jewish Scriptures, for his own strength and peace of mind and as a tool for use in evangelizing other Jews and God-fearers. And what we have here is really an appositive, a subordinate clause, in the middle of a long sentence, peeled out and supplied with translator's-opinion verbs to make it a standalone sentence. And then pulling a bait-and-switch from "Scriptures=Tanakh" in the opinion of Paul and Timothy to "Scriptures=Protestant Bible" in the opinion of the present-day translator and reader.

And using a mistranslation of a single verse in Paul lifted out of context and supplied with that bait-and-switch change of meaning to instruct one to go against the direct commandment of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, well, respect for forum rules bars me from saying what I really feel about that.

Wow.
A long winding path of opinion.
I can't see where it doesn't fit man's arguments that condradict sound doctrine. History is full of arugments by mankind:
to arrive at a place where "do not" means A-OK
and where men and women exchanging what God has given provision in favor of perversion is able to be cherry-picked out as if it was not globally condemned like the surroundings.
Where man's opinion is so authoritive as to condemn widely, historically accepted and heavily scrutinized translation as a "mistranslation" and false teaching.

Fortunately, I am a believer and follower of Christ. The Spirit (His gift) guides the does and don'ts, what God repeatedly honors and what is absent of God's blessing, what is repeatedly pointed to and what is judged as wicked. The Spirit distinguish between
- when the world tries long-winded twists so that those whom would desire to commit the acts or promote the same can do it without the given burden of guilt attached or have those around see what is being done
-and the constant guidance that God has repeatedly ordained as good.

A person that has received the Spirit has died to self. What business do dead desires have in making claims on their own? None.
This is easy for anyone to claim, HOWEVER, my fruit is there to see and what I do and say is only an echo of given, Christian teaching. It is right there and can be examined. Those that try and justify same-gender sex, lust, romance, etc. have what? Stories on how each and every reference doesn't mean what it says and zip to show as being ordained by God.
And to what gain?
For the love acting out a sexual act.

Who would contest what is plainly right? No sane person.


A man married to a woman - right for many.
Abstinence - right for some.
Same-gender sex or desires - wrong.

Romans 8:5
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.
So much for long stories so that condemned sexual behavior might be exalted as good.

 

[kopilo]

Under what authority do you say a Christian acts without the spirit? Because you seem to be saying that is what Polycarp1 has done.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,

interesting discussion.

the "Bible" is also against mixing fabric types, such as linen and wool. how many are wearing mixed fabric at the moment?

have you ever cooked a meal on Saturday? if so, you are to be put to death.

the literalists also seem to pick and choose the bits of the Christian Old Testament that they choose to uphold as "literal" (it seems that the 'literal' verses support the being a priori views) and dismiss the rest as either "fulfilled" (even though that is not possible) or inapplicable.

it is a fascinating thing to observe, at least from my point of view.

metta,

~v

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Namaste all,

interesting discussion.

the "Bible" is also against mixing fabric types, such as linen and wool. you are supposed to kill beings that do this. how many Christians have started killing people that work at the Gap?

have you ever cooked a meal on Saturday? if so, you are to be put to death.

the literalists also seem to pick and choose the bits of the Christian Old Testament that they choose to uphold as "literal" (it seems that the 'literal' verses support the being a priori views) and dismiss the rest as either "fulfilled" (even though that is not possible) or inapplicable.

it is a fascinating thing to observe, at least from my point of view.

metta,

~v

Interesting... could you state what translation you are reading where the penalty for linen and wool is death?

Can you show where that is shown to not only apply to Jews but to Gentiles like the sexual immorality is?

Just wondering.

 

[steen]

kopilo, the Bible is opposed to homosexuality. I don't see why it's radical to oppose it's condonement in our schools.

Because of the 1st Amendment to the US COnstitution. The law, you know.

 

[kopilo]

Interesting... could you state what translation you are reading where the penalty for linen and wool is death?

Can you show where that is shown to not only apply to Jews but to Gentiles like the sexual immorality is?

Just wondering.

Maybe you can explain how these verses are seperate, especially considering they follow sexual immorality.
[bible]leviticus 19:13[/bible]
[bible]Leviticus 19:26[/bible]

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Maybe you can explain how these two verses are seperate, especially considering they follow sexual immorality.
[bible]leviticus 19:13[/bible]
[bible]Leviticus 19:26[/bible]

And why would I chase rabbits released on the field?

 

[kopilo]

And why would I chase rabbits released on the field?

Because it is a sin to steal but is it still a sin to eat meat with blood on it?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Nothing to do about sex, nothing to do about vajradhara's claim that mixing linen and wool got the death penalty, ect.

But if you are seriously in need of an answer and believe that it is a sin against God to eat meat soaked in fresh blood, here is some good advice... DON'T DO IT!

1 Corinthians 8:9-13
9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.


But as for me, my wife is a vegetarian and I make sure my meat isn't bathing in blood... I don't really care for the fat either, so I guess I don't even have to worry about such things.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

...

 

[kopilo]

Nothing to do about sex, nothing to do about vajradhara's claim that mixing linen and wool got the death penalty, ect.

Ok then, how about if someone has sex with a women during her period, they should be expelled from society.
Leviticus 18:19

But if you are seriously in need of an answer and believe that it is a sin against God to eat meat soaked in fresh blood, here is some good advice... DON'T DO IT!
1 Corinthians 8:9-13

Thank you, but isn't that deciding what is a sin on opinion.. hmm?

But as for me, my wife is a vegetarian and I make sure my meat isn't bathing in blood... I don't really care for the fat either, so I guess I don't even have to worry about such things.

nice.

 

[RealityCheck]

Perhaps these are the verse we're looking for:

Deut 21:11 - 11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

There's no penalty ascribed in this same chapter, and in Leviticus 19:19 the same decree is made but no punishment is stated.

However, the lack of a punishment does not detract from the fact that is says "Do not do this." How does one justify doing it, in direct contradiction with the Bible? If you believe that the Bible states "homosexuality is evil" and you believe God said this, why would you think that "do not mix wool and linen" is not God's word and therefore to be obeyed?

Of course, there's plenty of other things in these chapters to chew on. Something like "wool and linen" might get classed under "ceremonial laws" which many Christians seem to think are no longer applicable (under the grace of Jesus Christ), but by contrast the "moral laws" are still to be abided by no matter what.

So...

Deut 21:22 - If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.

Well now. According to the Bible, the penalty for adultery, clearly a moral violation, is death for both parties. Anyone advocating for such a law? Anyone pushing for this?

More from the same chapter, 22:13-21 -


13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [b] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Here, we see that if a man marries a woman and he discovers she's not a virgin, and no proof of her virginity can be found, she is to be tossed at her father's doorstep and stoned in front of his house. Not only is this his right, but God commands it in order to purge evil. Nice, yes?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Ok then, how about it is a sin to have sex with a women during her period?

What about it?
You should start off with questioning whether or not the person is even married. There is more than one chapter to consider. I agree with those that echo that sentiment.

But if you must know... I have repented of that among many, many things. Was there some big reason why people need to have sex during that time that I'm missing? I'm not missing it nor is my wife. In fact, time spent apart grows an appreciation apart from sex and builds desire for later. We don't see this as something bad.

I suppose if there is a list someone is running down, it would be good to acknowledge that the good news means that there is forgiveness promised for repentance. You know this, right?

Matthew 4:17
From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

Luke 15:7
I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

Thank you.

nice.

 

[steen]

Animals can have bacteria in their blood. Pig blood is toxic and probably why God ordered them not to eat it.

Really? Pig's blood is toxic? Care to document that with some verifiable, scientific sources?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Under what authority do you say a Christian acts without the spirit? Because you seem to be saying that is what Polycarp1 has done.

I dislike rephrasings into what I didn't say... but since you read it differently, I'll try and edit it so that it isn't misunderstood.

K?

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

...