Yes, Many evangelicals and fundamentalists ARE bigots!

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
OK, I'll bite. The NIV (and ESV), states "not to have sexual relations with",

That is not what the NIV says.

"Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to marry.” -1 Cor. 7:1 NIV

Copyright 1978, Zondervan Publishing Company

They have since went and changed it.

biblegateway.com, where I quote/copy/paste scriptures from, has recently changed/updated to the 2011 version.

I know, fresh out of prison in 1984, a girlfriend of mine gave me a copy of the NIV as a gift.

And I also remember having an argument with my pastor over this.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
All the children of the world…
Red and yellow, black and white…
They are precious in His sight…
Jesus loves the little children of the world”

Herman: Well, that song was quite obviously written by an Arminian

Calvin: Why do you say that?

Herman: Well, the song says that Jesus loves “all” the little children of the “world”.
That is what Arminians believe, that Christ died for all and loves the world in such a way that He truly desires all to believe in Christ and be saved.

Calvin: Oh, well you have just misunderstood the context of the song.

Herman: What do you mean?

Calvin: Well, the context plainly demonstrates that “all” doesn’t mean “every child without exception

Herman: It doesn’t?

Calvin: Of course not. Look at that one line that says, “Red and yellow, black and white”.

Herman: O.K.

Calvin: Well, it seems obvious to me that when he says “all the children of the world” he only means all the different colors of children in the world. You see, he is really concerned about racism and guarding against the false teaching that Jesus might only love red children and not any black children, etc.

Herman: Is that right? I never realized that?

Calvin: Well, most people don’t, but that is just because they pay no attention to context. That is why God gave us Reformed theologians to explain these things to us. I could give you a good book by a Calvinist where he spends about twenty pages explaining why “all the children of the world“ really means “only a relatively few children from among all the various races of the world”.

Herman: Wow, it is amazing to me that I never realized that before. I think I would like to read that book. Thank God he didn’t leave us on our own to interpret songs like this one or we might come to some really bizarre conclusions. I don’t know what we would ever do without those Reformed theologians you mentioned. I think from now on I will just read from them so I don’t misunderstand something else as I am obviously easily confused.

Calvin: Absolutely. Just make sure you don’t put their writings above what the songs actually say while understanding that it is impossible to rightly understand what the songs actually say and mean without reading from them.

Herman: Uh, sure. That makes sense. I think. Are you suggesting that they might be wrong about this song after all?

Calvin: Of course not. They are right because that is what the verse plainly means when considered in context and you can be sure that the song plainly means that because the Reformed theologians say so. Got it?

Herman: Yeah, I got it. Well, I’m off to buy some of those books you recommended. Thanks for all your help. Imagine, if I had never talked to you I would have just gone right on foolishly believing that the song was saying that Jesus actually loved “all” the children of the “world”.

Calvin: No problem. That’s what I’m here for.


And that is realivent how?

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What are you talking about?

1 Corinthians 7 NIV

Looks like that's what it says to me.

Now what did I say earlier?

"Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to marry.” -1 Cor. 7:1 NIV

Copyright 1978, Zondervan Publishing Company

They have since went and changed it.

biblegateway.com, where I quote/copy/paste scriptures from, has recently changed/updated to the 2011 version.

I know, fresh out of prison in 1984, a girlfriend of mine gave me a copy of the NIV as a gift.

And I also remember having an argument with my pastor over this.
How many revisions has the NIV gone through since it was first published?

How many revisions has the KJV gone through since it was first published?

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

standingtall

Such is life....
Jan 5, 2012
790
85
✟1,535.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How many revisions has the NIV gone through since it was first published?

How many revisions has the KJV gone through since it was first published?

OK, so they corrected it to read the way it should have been. That's good, right? What's your beef with that?

I know where you're going with the number of revisions, and I'm not playing that game. It simply doesn't matter. It's truly all a matter of preference to the reader.

We could argue and discuss this for months and in the end, you'll prefer your version, and I'll prefer mine.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Frankly, I don't know why anyone wastes time arguing over what one version says in relation to another. Why not delve into the Hebrew and Greek from which SOME of them were translated?

Sheesh....:doh:

BTW

FYI: I am a student of the Greek New Testament.

God Bless

TIll all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
OK, so they corrected it to read the way it should have been. That's good, right? What's your beef with that?

I know where you're going with the number of revisions, and I'm not playing that game. It simply doesn't matter. It's truly all a matter of preference to the reader.

We could argue and discuss this for months and in the end, you'll prefer your version, and I'll prefer mine.

It's important because up untill 2013, they had the 1978 version of the NIV on-line.

And in that version, it said:

"Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to marry.” -1 Cor. 7:1 NIV"

And that was totally way, way out of line.

At least the KJV was in line with what the Greek says.

In 1984, the pastor got up in church, using the NIV and preached a message saying that no man or woman should marry based on 1 Cor. 7:1 NIV.

That I cannot abide.

God blessed and sanctified the marriage in the garden between Adam and Eve.

And it says in Hebrews that the marriage bed is holy, undefiled.

So the NIV was wrong.

Period.

And I take issue with that.

If you have a problem with that, then what can I tell you?

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Spiritlight

✰•.¸¸★•*´¨`*•.¸.✰
Apr 1, 2011
2,116
429
manitoba
✟23,118.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I find the most open minded non judgemental ones christians are the well read ones comfortable in their faith and not believing fallacies and myths people tell them.

The bigoted people in anything are a bit like a draught horse with blinkers on and wont look anywhere else but in one place. Often they rely on what they hear and where someone leads them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BeforeThereWas

Seasoned Warrior
Mar 14, 2005
2,450
59
Midwest City, OK
✟10,560.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
It's important because up untill 2013, they had the 1978 version of the NIV on-line.

And in that version, it said:

"Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to marry.” -1 Cor. 7:1 NIV"

And that was totally way, way out of line.

At least the KJV was in line with what the Greek says.

In 1984, the pastor got up in church, using the NIV and preached a message saying that no man or woman should marry based on 1 Cor. 7:1 NIV.

That I cannot abide.

Sounds to me like that false teacher preacher boy needs to be taken out to the woodshed.....except for one thing where he's actually right:

MOST today have no business getting married!

Most are going into first relationships with false beliefs and understanding about what marriage really is, and many of them are going into second relationships which is adultery in most cases.

Yessiree, boys and girls. Many social marriages these days are adulterous relationships in God's eyes. Many professing believers these days think that a legal maneuver in a courtroom finalizes a divorce in God's eyes as well, which is FAR from the TRUTH. Yep. Many with those pieces of paper from City Hall are living in adulterous/fornicative relationships they THINK is marriage.

Additionally, most people think the absence of that piece of paper somehow constitutes a moral crisis. Most are no longer taught by those false teachers behind pulpits that marriage was defined once and for all in Genesis 2, and the Lord at no time ever relinquished over to mankind and his petty laws the Lord's own sole authority over marriage and its definition.

BTW
 
Upvote 0

standingtall

Such is life....
Jan 5, 2012
790
85
✟1,535.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to marry.” -1 Cor. 7:1 NIV"

And that was totally way, way out of line.

In 1984, the pastor got up in church, using the NIV and preached a message saying that no man or woman should marry based on 1 Cor. 7:1 NIV.

But here's the thing. Whether it said "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." (as in the NIV 2011) or "It is good for a man not to marry" has nothing to do with the fact that it wasn't Paul saying that. It was the Corinthians who were saying that, and Paul was correcting them.

Notice what Paul said in the next two verses:

(NIV 1978)
2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

(NIV 2011)
2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

Paul is telling "yes, marry and have sex with your spouse!" The variation in the text of verse 1 has nothing to do with what Paul said to correct them.

If that pastor got up in church and preached a message saying that no man or woman should marry, he obviously has no business up there preaching because he telling people to do what the Corinthians were telling their folks before Paul corrected them.
 
Upvote 0

Maryland Girl

Active Member
Feb 18, 2013
153
10
Maryland
✟15,341.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Real bigotry requires two things, 1. Strong dislike/hate 2. Having no moral justification for that dislike/hate.

So the test is not "are you holding steadfast to your beliefs?" but "do you dislike someone or their actions without cause?" Is your view on the matter right or wrong?

Liberals have taken hold of an irresponsible and sloppy definition of the word bigotry, and slapped it on anyone who believes in moral absolutes. They won't be happy until those who stand for good are in prison and chaos rules.

It's getting old liberals. Very old.

P.S. - People who don't believe that society should be held to a standard of moral absolutes have no right to tell other people they are bigots. Because that in itself is passing a moral judgement, and we wouldn't want liberals finding themselves guilty of passing judgement on another person based on their personal morals. God forbid.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bsd058

Sola and Tota Scripturist
Oct 9, 2012
606
95
Florida, USA
✟14,546.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Let's use your own example of a prior post where you wrote:

"The kind of tolerance he was espousing was the kind that made Sodom a place where the judgment of God fell."

We see in that story itself where the people of Sodom were going to rape the visitors. I do think any civilized society has laws against rape and that is not in question. But, to see further the sins of Sodom, which of these will you put into law, or dictate to a neighbor how to obey it:

“Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw [good].” Eze 16:49-50

So, you are going to judge the amount of "pride" a neighbor has? What scale are you going to use on that? Or, how much do they eat? Maybe you and Mayor Bloomberg can be nannies together over other people's diets. How are you going to tell others to budget their time? How about their charitable giving, you'll dictate that as well?

You are missing the entire point of the OP! In the USA, we do not have "religious tolerance", we have RELIGIOUS LIBERTY! To tolerate presumes a superiority of your view over others. In the USA none is superior to others under our law.
This whole thread is based upon an anachronistic understanding of an outdated definition, anyway.

As to your view as to what Ezekiel was saying there, do you suppose that it was strange that Lot offered his two daughters in order that the men of the city not commit a wicked act?


Gen 19:1-11

Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.


It seems to me the abomination Ezekiel was talking about was the fact that these men wanted to have sex with men (among other evil things). Lot, after all, offered his two daughters to be had by the men of Sodom in order that the men be prevented from doing this evil thing. If it was merely raping that was the wicked act that Lot was referring to, then why did he offer his two daughters to prevent the men of Sodom from doing evil?
 
Upvote 0

BeforeThereWas

Seasoned Warrior
Mar 14, 2005
2,450
59
Midwest City, OK
✟10,560.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
As to your view as to what Ezekiel was saying there, do you suppose that it was strange that Lot offered his two daughters in order that the men of the city not commit a wicked act?

Rape in any context is wicked.

As for Lot, he was spineless, and VERY confused to think that any angel needed his bargaining protection at the expense of his own daughters.

I'd say those two gilrs of his had every right to abandone any and all repsect for their biological father.

It seems to me the abomination Ezekiel was talking about was the fact that these men wanted to have sex with men (among other evil things).

The listed sins of those cities was quite descriptive. Homosexuality was one among several listed that classified them as wicked.

Lot, after all, offered his two daughters to be had by the men of Sodom in order that the men be prevented from doing this evil thing.

Are you actually saying that what might have been done to the two daughters was NOT potential evil in the sight of God? Please explain.

If it was merely raping that was the wicked act that Lot was referring to, then why did he offer his two daughters to prevent the men of Sodom from doing evil?

Do you think his two daughters would merely have been married to two of the men, thus appeasing the lust of the rest, or that the two girls might have been used by the potential rapists to satisfy their lust long enough to let the angels pass by unmolested?

I must say that your words offer no real solution to other's dilemma from what I'm seeing. Are you saying you'd to the same had you been standing in Lot's shoes?

BTW
 
Upvote 0

bsd058

Sola and Tota Scripturist
Oct 9, 2012
606
95
Florida, USA
✟14,546.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Rape in any context is wicked.

As for Lot, he was spineless, and VERY confused to think that any angel needed his bargaining protection at the expense of his own daughters.

I'd say those two gilrs of his had every right to abandone any and all repsect for their biological father.



The listed sins of those cities was quite descriptive. Homosexuality was one among several listed that classified them as wicked.



Are you actually saying that what might have been done to the two daughters was NOT potential evil in the sight of God? Please explain.



Do you think his two daughters would merely have been married to two of the men, thus appeasing the lust of the rest, or that the two girls might have been used by the potential rapists to satisfy their lust long enough to let the angels pass by unmolested?

I must say that your words offer no real solution to other's dilemma from what I'm seeing. Are you saying you'd to the same had you been standing in Lot's shoes?

BTW
In Lot's mind, the act the men were going to do to these men would not have been evil had they done it to his two daughters. They had a very primitive understanding of morals back then and Lot was just doing the natural thing.

I don't know what I would have done. I wasn't raised in primitive culture.

The fact that it is recorded in such a way in Genesis should lead anyone with an unbiased agenda to understand that, as Lot understood it, sex with men was evil, and sex with women would not have been evil. Whether rape was evil back then in the eyes of people, that's another story. In the law, the rapist was treated with more grace than today. They had to marry their victim to take care of them. Before the law, this action might not have been viewed in the light that it is today. We cannot look at this action through 21st century lenses.

Clearly ceteris paribus (an economic theory meaning all else being equal, but applies to this case) would lead anyone to the same conclusion. When we say that the mere act of rape was the evil Sodom was destroyed for, we are judging through anachronistic eyes, as though we would do any better than Lot being raised in the same culture. It was clear that Lot viewed their homosexual acts as the evil thing that would be prevented if they took his daughters instead of the two men (who were actually angels).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BeforeThereWas

Seasoned Warrior
Mar 14, 2005
2,450
59
Midwest City, OK
✟10,560.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
In Lot's mind, the act the men were going to do to these men would not have been evil had they done it to his two daughters.

I don't recall the Lord stating Lot was righteous.

They had a very primitive understanding of morals back then and Lot was just doing the natural thing.

Primitive? The elitist mentality toward which most people today tend to gravitate is comical. We're killing the unborn in America in record numbers over the past 20 years, and yet many dare to assume we're suprior to the ancients. That's worse than avarice and fleshly pride. It's blind indifference to the facts. We civilized only in the way we present our own evils. Instead of openly ripping babies from wombs where the public can see the handiwork of its immoralities, it's all hidden within unclean clinics, out of sight, so the public can feel more secure in its barbaric pursuits.

There are those who brandish the glowing irons of hate toward gun ownership, and who then turn around and fight against attempts at doing away with those people who take the lives of others while driving drunk. More children are killed in alcohol related deaths than gun related, but as long as people can stick their heads into the sand and assume civility in spite of it all, they can continue to assume they're superior to the ancients.

Your statement wreaks of the filth our culture consumes as if it were nourishing and wholesome. We're no better than they were back then. The intelligence of those people was no lower then than what we are today. Technology doesn't translate into intelligence. I'd go so far as to say that genetic deterioration has caused greater damage to our ability for intelligence over time, with a few exceptions throughout time.

It's written there's nothing new under the sun.

The fact that it is recorded in such a way in Genesis should lead anyone with an unbiased agenda to understand that, as Lot understood it, sex with men was evil, and sex with women would not have been evil.

We can try to fill in the gaps all we want with those things that lack specific mention within scriptuer, but the fact remains that what was sin then is sin now where sexual conduct is concerned, even though the penalties vary.

BTW
 
Upvote 0