The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: CC27 on January 14, 2015, 12:16:13 PM
-
1bigdude (13 posts)
My Encounter w/ Baptist Minister Who Refused to Acknowledge Biblical Command to Kill....
This past Sunday, I was in the congregation of a rather large Baptist church in South Carolina. This is a mega-church where the who's who of the region attend.
Anyway, after the service, I sought out a minister (they have several) and asked him point blank: "Sal, I'm having trouble with associating the Biblical commandments to kill with the idea of a loving god. Specifically, Leviticus chapter 20 is a litany of who we are commanded to stone to death. Can you explain?"
HIS RESPONSE IS TO DIVERT AND GO AFTER PRESIDENT OBAMA
Minister: "That's a great question! And I'll tell you right now that the problem with this country is that we do not have a godly man in the White House. He obviously has a problem with Christianity and is destroying this country bit by bit."
Me: "I disagree and couldn't care less what his religious feelings are...but back to my question...can you, as a man of the Bible, tell me why a loving god would command us to kill?"
Minister: "Well, you and I could read the exact same scripture and have two completely interpretations."
Me: "Ok...I've got my iPad right here...let's look at Leviticus 20 v. 9 (‘Any child who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.) How do YOU interpret that?"
Minister: "Well...again...the problem with our country is the fact that the homosexuals are taking over and ruining the idea of 'family.'"
Me: "So...you're not going to answer the original question then?"
Minister: "Oh I'm not afraid of tough questions but I have to run and meet someone in my office as I'm already late."
Nice bouncy DUmmie. Who brings a Ipad to Church? :whatever:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026083857
-
I want them to put up these signs at the state line.... YANKEES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EXIT THE INTERSTATE FOR ANY REASON UNDER PAIN OF DEATH.
-
DUmmies like to pick on Leviticus since it is one that specifically mentions that being a homo is an abomination.
-
Nice bouncy DUmmie.
Hell, that was so poorly constructed, the first little pig could have lived in it.
-
1bigdude (13 posts)
My Encounter w/ Baptist Minister Who Refused to Acknowledge Biblical Command to Kill....
You were in a Baptist church, not a synagogue. ****ing retard.
-
For a group of primitives that constantly disparage the Bible, they always seem to know everything about it.
Once again, the DUmmie has complete, total, word for word recall of a false but accurate conversation.
Yo...DUmmie, your bouncie sux so bad, it's in the negative bong range. :bird: :loser:
-
Wed Jan 14, 2015, 09:39 AM
CBGLuthier (10,886 posts)
1. I always love stories like this
I'm pretty certain they never happen except in the storyteller's heads but I still love them.
Wed Jan 14, 2015, 10:23 AM
Star Member WhiteTara (14,010 posts)
8. be careful friend
you may get alerted for calling that poster a liar...s/he is a newbie and that is an attack on another poster. The post nazis are in full uniform on this board. Oh, this will be alerted and hidden...I said post nazis.
Did you ever wonder why DUmmy hunter is a permanent resident in the DUmp loony bin?
Wed Jan 14, 2015, 11:38 AM
Star Member hunter (20,693 posts)
15. I always liked my mom's disagreements with religious leaders.
They usually ended with our entire family being banished from a church. From a kid's perspective it wasn't all bad, we'd get Sundays off for a few weeks until she found a new church to torment.
She'd have no problem tearing a new hole in some Baptist minister if she felt so inclined, possibly resulting in arrest and a restraining order. Her answer at the end of your story (if the minister wasn't already red-faced and spewing spittle) would be to say, "Hey, I'll run with you!" And she would.
-
DUmmies like to pick on Leviticus since it is one that specifically mentions that being a homo is an abomination.
St. Paul also condemns homosexuality as an abomination in both Romans and Corinthians (That's off the top of my head, but I believe those are the two books).
Liberal Christians claim that St. Paul perverted the teachings of Jesus, and since Jesus never openly condemned homosexuality in the Bible, it is acceptable.
-
Did you ever wonder why DUmmy hunter is a permanent resident in the DUmp loony bin?
Question... If Dummies hunter and 1bigdude hate the Bible, why do they spend their Sunday going to a Church just to argue with the minister/priest? Why does the spirituality of others annoy them so much?
-
Sooooooo instead going to church to basque in God's glory a dummy goes to argue?
Why must they try to ruin everything good?
-
Someone needs to get some remedial mole training. :banghead:
-
and the minister's name was "Sal"? That is an added detail that detracts from the whole bouncy. This guy has less than 20 posts, at first I thought this bouncy was from a rsmith6621 sock, but it's written more like a PCIntern post - literate but with crazy conversation the DUmmy recalls word for word.
-
Nice bouncy DUmmie. Who brings a Ipad to Church? :whatever:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026083857
Several of us do :) as well as other portable devices.
Mine's a Samsung Galaxy Tab 3. I run Laridian's PocketBible for Android on it for church purposes.
-
Last night my Dummy mole was getting ready to post a response to one of the numerous Bible vs. the death penalty threads there. But I thought better of it as it's against the mission of my mole. Which is to seek out strange new life forms where ever they may be. Even in the mental ward.
-
Bigdude is running face first into the sin of gluttony.
-
You were in a Baptist church, not a synagogue. ****ing retard.
My thoughts too. I assumed Christians were more concerned with the New Testament than the Old.
-
Once again this misunderstanding raises it ugly head.
First of all the Israelites where to be a holy society and theocracy that was to remain ritually pure. The stoning was the ultimate punishment, not the only punishment and it was only to be done so that the society could maintain it's purity. The killing was to remove the habitual defilers of God's law from the group. Exile was also practiced. Also, anyone who didn't think they could live under the rules were allowed to leave.
Secondly, these punishments were only decreed after a trial that used the rules God set forth for judging innocence or guilt. Stoning was not a spontaneous act of mob retribution.
Thirdly, these punishments weren't meant to be applied to those outside of Hebrew society. When Christ came He understood that Christians would not be living in a theocracy and would be subject to the social rules of the societies they lived in. What Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount and in other places was how Christians were to behave with each other and in the world in general. Paul elaborated on this in Romans 13. They only time that Christians are allowed to disobey the laws of the land is when those laws stand in opposition to Jesus' commands.
-
A lot of the Dummy responses to the problem of the death penalty has to do with Jesus turning the other cheek. Lost on the primitives is that individual sin against man is not forgiven by God unless the individual confess and repent of their sins to God in Christ. And even then, the sinner is not excused from civil repercussions of the violation. Difficult to relay that information without blowing your moles cover.
-
Occasionally, they call each other out on the bouncies. For example:
ileus (11,400 posts)
32. It's always more fun to troll in person...
This didn't happen, it's someones theory of how a conversation with a minister would go.
I've been going to Christian based "churches" for 44 years off and on. Not once in all those years has any preacher instructed me to kill, or any of the other silly horseshit folks like to claim on internet forums.
Surprisingly sane, and won't last long, but that's exactly what this is.
-
What Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount and in other places was how Christians were to behave with each other and in the world in general. Paul elaborated on this in Romans 13. They only time that Christians are allowed to disobey the laws of the land is when those laws stand in opposition to Jesus' commands.
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst. They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
He who is without sin among you. He said this according to the custom of the Law; for God commanded that the witnesses should, with their own hands, put malefactors to death, according to the sentence which had been pronounced on them; that greater caution might be used in bearing testimony, (Deuteronomy 17:7.) There are many who proceed rashly to overwhelm their brother by perjury, because they do not think that they inflict a deadly wound by their tongue. And this very argument, had weight with those slanderers, desperate as they were; for no sooner do they obtain a sight of it, than they lay aside those fierce passions with which they were swelled when they came. Yet there is this difference between the injunction of the Law and the words of Christ, that in the Law God merely enjoined that they should not condemn a man with the tongue, unless they were permitted to put him to death with their own hands; but here Christ demands from the witnesses perfect innocence, so that no man ought to accuse another of crime, unless he be pure, and free from every fault. Now what he said, at that time, to a few persons, we ought to view as spoken to all, that whoever accuses another, ought to impose on himself a law of innocence; otherwise, we do not pursue wicked actions, but rather are hostile to the persons of men.
In this way, however, Christ appears to take out of the world all judicial decisions, so that no man shall dare to say that he has a right to punish crimes. For shall a single judge be found, who is not conscious of having something that is wrong? Shall a single witness be produced who is not chargeable with some fault? He appears, therefore, to forbid all witnesses to give public testimony, and all judges to occupy the judgment-seat. I:reply: this is not an absolute and unlimited prohibition, by which Christ forbids sinners to do their duty in correcting the sins of others; but by this word he only reproves hypocrites, who mildly flatter themselves and their vices, but are excessively severe, and even act the part of felons, in censuring others. No man, therefore, shall be prevented by his own sins from correcting the sins of others, and even from punishing them, when it may be found necessary, provided that both in himself and in others he hate what ought to be condemned; and in addition to all this, every man ought to begin by interrogating his own conscience, and by acting both as witness and judge against himself, before he come to others. In this manner shall we, without hating men, make war with sins.
Go, and sin no more. Hence we infer what is the design of the grace of Christ. It is, that the sinner, being reconciled to God, may honor the Author of his salvation by a good and holy life. In short, by the same word of God, when forgiveness is offered to us, we are likewise called to repentance. Besides, though this exhortation looks forward to the future, still it humbles sinners by recalling to remembrance their past life.
-
I want them to put up these signs at the state line.... YANKEES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EXIT THE INTERSTATE FOR ANY REASON UNDER PAIN OF DEATH.
:cheersmate:
-
1bigdude (13 posts)
Either you're a newbie or a troll (who shouldn't try so hard) trying to establish street cred. You need a few pointers.
My Encounter w/ Baptist Minister Who Refused to Acknowledge Biblical Command to Kill....
This past Sunday, I was in the congregation of a rather large Baptist church in South Carolina. This is a mega-church where the who's who of the region attend.
You need to start with "SO". As in, "So this past Sunday..." However, I doubt you did anything more than drive by and think "we all know how those damn Baptists are, I should be able to come up with something."
Next time you're dealing with a pastor, who's actually been to "pastor school", go ahead and name the church. It sounds more credible. Why hide the name of a racist bigoted church? Who are you trying to protect? It's not like anyone at the DUmp was there to challenge your tale of superiority. Try something like "Conservative Haters Baptist Church" or "No Gay Allowed Baptist Church". Unless you attend regularly, there's no way you could know whether the "who's who" of the region attend. Besides, regions are pretty big. Why would anyone drive 50 miles to attend this church when there's probably a "Baptist Church of Rich Bigots" a few miles down the road from them.
Anyway, after the service, I sought out a minister (they have several) and asked him point blank: "Sal, I'm having trouble with associating the Biblical commandments to kill with the idea of a loving god. Specifically, Leviticus chapter 20 is a litany of who we are commanded to stone to death. Can you explain?"
An "anyway" works very well in a bouncy and is a nice segue into the story itself. Do you think it's a good idea to call the pastor by his name? That kind of familiarity would only come from someone who attends regularly. Do you really want those you're trying to impress to think you attend a church like this? Well perhaps he was wearing a name tag that said "Old White Guy Pastor Sal". Sal sounds like a transplanted Catholic Mafia Don. You're in the south. You people on the left (and their wannabes) have preconceived biases about people from the south. Try Billy Bob, Joe Bob, something like that. Using the Old Testament is good since you all forget about that whole "new covenant" thing. To you, Jesus had nothing to do with backwards Jews with very specific (but less murderous by a country mile) strict morals as today's Muslims do. Jesus was immaculately conceived as our first socialist.
HIS RESPONSE IS TO DIVERT AND GO AFTER PRESIDENT OBAMA
Minister: "That's a great question! And I'll tell you right now that the problem with this country is that we do not have a godly man in the White House. He obviously has a problem with Christianity and is destroying this country bit by bit."
Okay, even a conservative pastor wouldn't leap to 0bama right away, diversion or not. Let's work with this a bit. We know we need to get from his not answering your question to 0bama and even a dumb southerner wouldn't do it this way. How about: "Well, the Koran is a whole lot more violent than the Bible. Christians don't stone anyone these days but the Muzzies do. How come we're letting them all out of Gitmo? Everyone knows 0bama's a secret Muslim who wasn't even born in this country. He's freeing all these A-rab terrorists so they can kill more 'Mericans and behead women and children!"
Me: "I disagree and couldn't care less what his religious feelings are...but back to my question...can you, as a man of the Bible, tell me why a loving god would command us to kill?"
You've got to pepper this with more (liberal) moral superiority and it's time for the obligatory adoring audience: About that time a crowd was starting to gather. I wanted to call him on being such a racist (everyone else knows Islam isn't a race but since that's what you folks call it, we'll stick with that) but I wanted him to admit his God was an asshole or his Bible was worse than anything Mohammed ever wrote. So I said, "I'm not talking about 0bama and his beliefs are private. The world is much more peaceful and everyone finally has health care, thanks to him. They don't give out Nobel Peace prizes for no reason. I want to know why a loving God would tell his people to kill."
Minister: "Well, you and I could read the exact same scripture and have two completely interpretations."
Generally speaking, it's only liberals who think the Bible is open for interpretation so it's highly unlikely this would be his argument. Try something like, "There's a lot of things they did in the Old Testament we don't do today. Jesus brought a new covenant that made many of those practices obsolete."
Me: "Ok...I've got my iPad right here...let's look at Leviticus 20 v. 9 (‘Any child who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.) How do YOU interpret that?"
I'm sure other DUmmies wouldn't even question why you brought an iPad to church so we'll leave that. Besides, you guys love bragging about your stuff. It's a church so it's not like there are any Bibles in the pews or people carrying them around or anything which makes an iPad is ever so handy. Cue the suspect verse. "I don't see anywhere Jesus condemned this, do you? So it obviously wasn't part of any change Jesus supposedly brought. So why would a loving God tell parents to kill their children?"
Minister: "Well...again...the problem with our country is the fact that the homosexuals are taking over and ruining the idea of 'family.'"
You're not getting the concept are you? You're supposed to sound smarter. We haven't gotten to homosexuals yet. Granted, we have to hit all the talking points but let's at least relate it to the conversation. "Well, any kid cursing their parents has a reason for their disobedience. They were probably heathens or homo or something and their families were smart enough to nip it in the bud! Look what's happening today, homosexuals are taking over our country, marrying and destroying the family!"
Me: "So...you're not going to answer the original question then?"
Good one, here.
Minister: "Oh I'm not afraid of tough questions but I have to run and meet someone in my office as I'm already late."
At this point he would be highly agitated and you have an audience to impress, remember?
Well, at that point he practically lunged at me screaming, "I bet you're one of those homosexuals too, trying to defile the name of God!" Everyone around us was looking at him with disgust.
I said, "Pastor Billy Bob, calm down! Would God want you acting this way towards a visitor? I thought Jesus was all about kindness to strangers."
About that time a cop jumped out from behind the pulpit and asked him to come outside for some fresh air. I could see veins popping out of his head while he was being escorted out. Everyone around me started clapping and patting me on the back. They were all saying they had to find a church that wasn't so prejudiced and bigoted. I recommended the Unitarian Church just down the street and then I put my iPad back in my bag and left. I saw him the way to my Prius and gave him a great big smile!
-
1bigdude (13 posts)
My Encounter w/ Baptist Minister Who Refused to Acknowledge Biblical Command to Kill....
This past Sunday, I was in the congregation of a rather large Baptist church in South Carolina. This is a mega-church where the who's who of the region attend.
Anyway, after the service, I sought out a minister (they have several) and asked him point blank: "Sal, I'm having trouble with associating the Biblical commandments to kill with the idea of a loving god. Specifically, Leviticus chapter 20 is a litany of who we are commanded to stone to death. Can you explain?"
HIS RESPONSE IS TO DIVERT AND GO AFTER PRESIDENT OBAMA
Minister: "That's a great question! And I'll tell you right now that the problem with this country is that we do not have a godly man in the White House. He obviously has a problem with Christianity and is destroying this country bit by bit."
Me: "I disagree and couldn't care less what his religious feelings are...but back to my question...can you, as a man of the Bible, tell me why a loving god would command us to kill?"
Minister: "Well, you and I could read the exact same scripture and have two completely interpretations."
Me: "Ok...I've got my iPad right here...let's look at Leviticus 20 v. 9 (‘Any child who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.) How do YOU interpret that?"
Minister: "Well...again...the problem with our country is the fact that the homosexuals are taking over and ruining the idea of 'family.'"
Me: "So...you're not going to answer the original question then?"
Minister: "Oh I'm not afraid of tough questions but I have to run and meet someone in my office as I'm already late."
I think that if this was my mole I would have ended it by saying that I laughed as I walked away with my girlfriend, Morgan Fairchild.
-
So, brand new (D)Ullard is on a first name, drinking buddy basis with the Minister, yet .......
HIS RESPONSE IS TO DIVERT AND GO AFTER PRESIDENT OBAMA
....this comes as a surprise to you?
:bouncy: :bouncy: :bouncy: :bouncy: :bouncy: :bouncy:
You are required to try harder.
:hi5:
-
Nice bouncy DUmmie. Who brings a Ipad to Church? :whatever:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026083857
Not to defend the DUmmie in any way shape or form, but I have the bible on my tablet and use it at church...I see a lot of people at the church I attend here using their tablets for that purpose.
That being said this is another predictable cherry picked Biblical reference that Progressives like to use to try and catch Christians in a "gotcha" moment.
Funny how they never reference Jesus driving the tax collectors from the gate in Jerusulem.
IN sort, what the DUmmies know about the Bible and being a Christian wouldn't fill a thimble.
-
My thoughts too. I assumed Christians were more concerned with the New Testament than the Old.
We are. It's the Progressives and Athiests (redundant I know) that like to focus on the Old Testament as a means of morally equivacating Christians with Radical Islam.
The only time you'll see Progressives refer to the New Testament is when they try to tell us Jesus was a Socialist.
-
Nice bouncy DUmmie. Who brings a Ipad to Church? :whatever:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026083857
Yep, it's almost certainly a bouncy fabricated by some one who probably doesn't know a theologically conservative Baptist (I'm not even sure if a theologically liberal minister from the liberal American Baptist Convention is that dumb).
As for your latter question, Mrs. SVPete uses her iPad at church to take notes of the sermon, and I do the same with a Samsung Galaxy Tab. What can I say? the "SV" in my forum name refers to the Silicon Valley where we live.
-
St. Paul also condemns homosexuality as an abomination in both Romans and Corinthians (That's off the top of my head, but I believe those are the two books).
Liberal Christians claim that St. Paul perverted the teachings of Jesus, and since Jesus never openly condemned homosexuality in the Bible, it is acceptable.
Romans chapter 1 and 1 Corinthians chapter 6, FWIW, but he doesn't call for the death penalty for homosexuals. Instead, in the latter passage, he commented, "and such were some of you". Not that a Lib/Prog would find that "were" any more palatable.
Libs & Progs and theological liberals love the Sermon on the Mount for the "Beatitudes", the "Golden Rule", and their favorite all-time Bible passage, "Judge not ...". They miss the passage, right after the "Beatitudes" where Jesus affirms the rightness of the Law of Moses, including his condemnations of homosexuality as an abomination (Moses took a dim view of fornication and adultery as well, though Libs & Progs conveniently forget this in discussing the ancient Israeli justice system's penalty for homosexuality ... which could only be applied if there were two or more witnesses).
-
Once again this misunderstanding raises it ugly head.
First of all the Israelites where to be a holy society and theocracy that was to remain ritually pure. The stoning was the ultimate punishment, not the only punishment and it was only to be done so that the society could maintain it's purity. The killing was to remove the habitual defilers of God's law from the group. Exile was also practiced. Also, anyone who didn't think they could live under the rules were allowed to leave.
Secondly, these punishments were only decreed after a trial that used the rules God set forth for judging innocence or guilt. Stoning was not a spontaneous act of mob retribution.
Thirdly, these punishments weren't meant to be applied to those outside of Hebrew society. When Christ came He understood that Christians would not be living in a theocracy and would be subject to the social rules of the societies they lived in. What Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount and in other places was how Christians were to behave with each other and in the world in general. Paul elaborated on this in Romans 13. They only time that Christians are allowed to disobey the laws of the land is when those laws stand in opposition to Jesus' commands.
If I could I'd give you more than one H-5! Accurately and well stated! And unlike me, succinctly as well.
-
Wed Jan 14, 2015, 09:39 AM
CBGLuthier (10,886 posts)
1. I always love stories like this
I'm pretty certain they never happen except in the storyteller's heads but I still love them.
A bouncy has to be pretty pathetic for it to be called out as such by DU-folk!
-
Not to defend the DUmmie in any way shape or form, but I have the bible on my tablet and use it at church...I see a lot of people at the church I attend here using their tablets for that purpose.
That being said this is another predictable cherry picked Biblical reference that Progressives like to use to try and catch Christians in a "gotcha" moment.
Funny how they never reference Jesus driving the tax collectors from the gate in Jerusulem.
IN sort, what the DUmmies know about the Bible and being a Christian wouldn't fill a thimble.
People in both our Contemporary and Traditional Choirs use iPads for their music. I'm getting one soon. It'll replace the tote bag that seems to gather more garbage than music.
-
Shoot, sissyk came and locked the thread.
Response to benz380 (Reply #22)
Wed Jan 14, 2015, 04:08 PM
1bigdude (29 posts)
48. I'll make this same offer to you, BENZ380. If you'd like, PM me and I'll provide his name and
contact number, and you can verify. The only catch is that you agree to post here on DU that the account is indeed true! Can't be any more fair than that, no?
https://newspring.cc/pastors
this guy needs their trolling tips:
but he said "Baptist" - where's Sal?: http://www.firstnorth.org/about/staff
-
I still have trouble with this concept, but all sin is equally offensive to God.
Murder and fornication are equally offensive.
The biggest sin in human eyes is just as offensive to God as the smallest.
Lest anyone think they are better or more holy than any other.
-
My thoughts too. I assumed Christians were more concerned with the New Testament than the Old.
We use the OT as a history book...it helps to understand the whats and whys of the NT...that said....Leviticus and all Levitical laws were for Jews in a given time period...Christians were never under that law.
-
We use the OT as a history book...it helps to understand the whats and whys of the NT...that said....Leviticus and all Levitical laws were for Jews in a given time period...Christians were never under that law.
Christians are to abide by the moral laws of the Old Testament, but because we have been saved by Christ's death and resurrection we will not be held accountable for our failures. We willingly abide by the moral laws out of a desire to demonstrate our love of Jesus. The moral laws of Leviticus still apply to us but the ritual laws are no longer necessary because we don't sacrifice any more. Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. Neither do we abide by the laws that set the Hebrews apart from the other nations (dietary laws, laws defining the make of clothing, etc).
The Old Testament is also more than a history book. Most importantly it teaches us the character of God and demonstrates for us the depths of man's fall. It shows us our need for Jesus and why His sacrifice was a necessary action.
-
Christians are to abide by the moral laws of the Old Testament, but because we have been saved by Christ's death and resurrection we will not be held accountable for our failures. We willingly abide by the moral laws out of a desire to demonstrate our love of Jesus. The moral laws of Leviticus still apply to us but the ritual laws are no longer necessary because we don't sacrifice any more. Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. Neither do we abide by the laws that set the Hebrews apart from the other nations (dietary laws, laws defining the make of clothing, etc).
The Old Testament is also more than a history book. Most importantly it teaches us the character of God and demonstrates for us the depths of man's fall. It shows us our need for Jesus and why His sacrifice was a necessary action.
The criminal, civil, and ceremonial laws of the Torah, in this case, capital punishment for homosexual acts, were specifically for the ancient nation of Israel. But the moral foundation of that law is true for all humans. Similarly, while the laws that would/should have made capital punishment rare in the ancient nation of Israel - having to do with burden of proof, to use the modern term - are also specific to Israel, their foundational wisdom (what we call "proof beyond a reasonable doubt") is true, generally.
-
The criminal, civil, and ceremonial laws of the Torah, in this case, capital punishment for homosexual acts, were specifically for the ancient nation of Israel. But the moral foundation of that law is true for all humans. Similarly, while the laws that would/should have made capital punishment rare in the ancient nation of Israel - having to do with burden of proof, to use the modern term - are also specific to Israel, their foundational wisdom (what we call "proof beyond a reasonable doubt") is true, generally.
I believe that the criminal laws, for the most part, are in line with the moral laws. The punishments for the laws, however, are not bound to the moral laws out side the Hebrew society. Homosexuality was wrong under the Torah and is wrong when viewed through the lens of Christianity. Hebrew society could punish the violation with death, Christians however are taught to seek to forgive homosexuals and encourage them to repent. If they choice not to repent then punishment, if any, is left in the hands of God.
The whole concept of love you enemy is, in my opinion, based around the idea of letting God deal with punishment for moral sins that are not addressed by social laws. This does not mean that a society can't choose to punish crimes that it feels violate its social order.
The whole area of what Christians can and can't do can be confusing. I believe that God would want Christians to encourage society not to implement the death penalty on homosexuals for the fact that they are homosexuals like we are to encourage society to have laws that make abortions illegal.
Most of this is just my opinion derived from reading scripture and using scripture as something that provides examples of God's desires. I try not to introduce my own feelings in to things because I am a fallible human but sometimes it is hard to be completely unbiased.
-
ISIS just killed two gays by throwing them from the roof of a building.
-
ISIS just killed two gays by throwing them from the roof of a building.
DUmmies should go over to Iraq and chain themselves to a oil barrel to protest that. I will buy the plane tickets
-
Romans chapter 1 and 1 Corinthians chapter 6, FWIW, but he doesn't call for the death penalty for homosexuals. Instead, in the latter passage, he commented, "and such were some of you". Not that a Lib/Prog would find that "were" any more palatable.
Libs & Progs and theological liberals love the Sermon on the Mount for the "Beatitudes", the "Golden Rule", and their favorite all-time Bible passage, "Judge not ...". They miss the passage, right after the "Beatitudes" where Jesus affirms the rightness of the Law of Moses, including his condemnations of homosexuality as an abomination (Moses took a dim view of fornication and adultery as well, though Libs & Progs conveniently forget this in discussing the ancient Israeli justice system's penalty for homosexuality ... which could only be applied if there were two or more witnesses).
I just think it's interesting that progressive Christian try and pretend that homosexuality is acceptable when St. Paul explicitly condemns in the New Testament.
Sadly, the progressive Christian and Catholics are given hope by some of the statements by Pope Francis.
-
I just think it's interesting that progressive Christian try and pretend that homosexuality is acceptable when St. Paul explicitly condemns in the New Testament.
Sadly, the progressive Christian and Catholics are given hope by some of the statements by Pope Francis.
but, but, but Paul was talking about men who are not homosexual having homosexual relationship not true homosexuals expressing their love for each other :thatsright:
-
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
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.
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. Professing to be wise, they became fools, 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.
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 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.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 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.
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,bring filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 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.
There just isn't enough wiggle-room in there to support the "not true homosexuals" idea. They have to ignore and warp Scripture dramatically to manage that "interpretation," or more accurately, "spin." They've spun it until it's upside down, spun it into a lie. But doesn't the end of that quote describe the left to a T? Haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents...unmerciful. Every word fits the DUmmies perfectly.
-
I just think it's interesting that progressive Christian try and pretend that homosexuality is acceptable when St. Paul explicitly condemns in the New Testament.
Sadly, the progressive Christian and Catholics are given hope by some of the statements by Pope Francis.
Theological liberals do not recognize the Bible as having any authority: they eschew Moses and Paul; they treat Jesus' teachings like a buffet table - picking what they want and ignoring the rest (e.g. my example of the Sermon on the Mount).
"Progressive Evangelicals" view Moses much the same, and come to pretty much the same view Paul, but by a different route. They think Paul hijacked Christianity, so they claim to focus on what Jesus taught (aka "Red Letter Christians"). They still treat jesus' teachings like a buffet table, but, so far, they take a little more than theological liberals.
I don't know enough to comment on things said by Pope Francis, but I'd take anything and everything the MSM say he said with a big block of salt. The MSM don't care enough about him or Catholics to be accurate, let alone understand what he says.
-
There just isn't enough wiggle-room in there to support the "not true homosexuals" idea. They have to ignore and warp Scripture dramatically to manage that "interpretation," or more accurately, "spin." They've spun it until it's upside down, spun it into a lie. ...
You just described what the Metropolitan Community Church does rather well. Then there's how they pretzellate David and Jonathan's friendship ...
-
but, but, but Paul was talking about men who are not homosexual having homosexual relationship not true homosexuals expressing their love for each other :thatsright:
Haha. I've read that interpretation on a liberal site. It's comical.
Sadly I went to a Jesuit school where many students and faculty and priest subscribed to these bs interpretations.
-
ugh.... the topic of gays is completely pointless. something like 1.8% of the male population identifies as gay. There are so few of them that the discussion really has no bearing on anything.
As a very wise preacher used to say:
God loves you just the way you are
-Mr. Rogers
Drive liberals nuts, don't wallow in their filth, rise above the argument and show some grace.