1
   

Got a bible? Grab it and look at this.

 
 
The Odious Wasp
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 04:13 am
ww wrote:
God says what he means and means what he says.

The Old Covenant, a covenant of Law, was fulfilled when Jesus bore our sins upon the cross and died.

The Law was given that man would know he is a sinner. Under the Old Covenant sin was punishable.

We are now living under a New Covenant, a covenant of Grace.

So here I go...

Is homosexuality wrong in the sight of God? Yes! It was when he created the universe and still is today. The act is a sin, but the price of that sin has been paid for by Jesus on the cross. Therefore God is not going to strike you down where you stand, God will not tell his faithful followers to stone you. Why? Because God so loved the world that he gave a New covenant, a new Law. The old law still applies, but the penalty has already been paid, but only IF the sinner accepts Jesus as their saviour.

If people do not accept Jesus, the Christ, as their personal saviour, when their mortal bodies die, their immortal Souls will be separated from God for eternity.

God says what he means, and means what he says. And he loves us so much that he gave.

ww

Granted, stuff has changed since the Old Testament times. So why has it only changed on some things and not others? If the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination (Lev. 18:22), and it is accepted today, then how come back then slavery was pretty much encouraged (Lev 25:44,45) while today it is an outrage?

I just watched Spider-Man 2, and I can now see that you've been caught in your own web.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 10:45 am
1Cr 6:8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!
1Cr 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,* nor sodomites,
1Cr 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 01:22 pm
revel wrote:
1Cr 6:8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!
1Cr 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,* nor sodomites,
1Cr 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.



What is that supposed to mean?
0 Replies
 
rmurphy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 02:51 pm
Take this a step further
I just read the verse mentioned and the comments that followed. Just out of curiosity, what part does culture play in the importance of scripture? If we look, most of the law books of the time have similar passages and contextual ramifications. I will admit, several rules are a bit strange, but after reading into the topic of ancient near eastern studies, I find it quite balanced. Something also to think about, how many rules were used as protection for the Israelites of Leviticus? Take the blood rule, yea that's funny, but before refrigeration meat that was left out was deadly. Blood at the time carried massive amounts of parasites and bacteria. If you place the idea of an omniscient God in a sort of parental position over a newly formed nation, alone and under its own protection for the first time, the rules aren't harsh, they are helpful. Think of childhood, crossing the road isn't bad, but contextually (without precaution or children without supervision) is harmful. It would be impossible to place our 21st century post modern brains completely in the context of this time period. Completely impossible. Even the homosexual thing. Part of moral separatism is an ideological division from surrounding communities. A small traveling nation would be immediately swallowed up into the river of conflicting views. The nation of Israel as a religion only found its true definition in the desert with Moses. Having differences and strong strict consequences for actions is the only way to condition an entire people into a new way of life and religion.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 02:58 pm
Re: Take this a step further
rmurphy wrote:
...the rules aren't harsh, they are helpful.


"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13


"If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to
his father or mother, and will not obey them even though they
chastise him, his father and mother shall have him apprehended
and brought out to the elders at the gate of his home city, where
...his fellow citizens shall stone him to death." Deuteronomy 22:18ff


"When you march up to attack a city, first offer terms of peace.
If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you,
all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor.
But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you
battle, lay siege to it, and when the Lord, your God, delivers it
into your hand, put every male in it to the sword, but the women
and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth
plunder you may take as your booty and you may use this plunder
of your enemies which the Lord, your God, has given you." Deuteronomy 20:10


"I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments
for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate
me, down to the third and fourth generation." Deuteronomy 5:9
0 Replies
 
rmurphy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 03:04 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
revel wrote:
1Cr 6:8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!
1Cr 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,* nor sodomites,
1Cr 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.



What is that supposed to mean?


This is an interesting set of verses. It almost seems to be the New Testament version of what was stated at the beginning of this forum. Try thinking in terms of world view, or more to the point, the point of your life. I don't believe the author means anyone who does this act such as drunkenness is going to hell, but rather, if this is your life, this is all you are, this is the extent of you as a living person then you have lost the idea of the scriptures. Paul is arguing against what he has heard about from letters and word of mouth about the NT church at Corinth. A principal feature or statement from Paul is that we (as followers of Christ) are supposed to be above reproach. The members of the church did not exhibit any fundamental difference from anyone else, in essence they were behaving the same and partaking in the pagan acts of the time and town. I know this sounds rather Cliché, but read "Religions of the Roman Empire" by John Ferguson. This book goes into detail about the acts and circumstances of pagan practices surrounding Corinth and Ephesus. It's also not written in comparison with Christianity and missing the heavily cliché ridden "made for the pulpit" b.s. Anyway, the point is that Paul was trying to get a community to believe past their normal lives. Like the mass people movements of the Persian empire, people have to break out of their normal lifestyle in order to begin again.
0 Replies
 
rmurphy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 03:25 pm
Re: Take this a step further
Frank Apisa wrote:
rmurphy wrote:
...the rules aren't harsh, they are helpful.


...two categories--those who acknowledge that we don't know the answers to unanswerable questions; and those who pretend to know.

1.) As I attempted to state before, the relationship between the OT and other religious and administrative texts of the time period is very strong. We will never fully understand the context from which it was written. Perhaps for the time period fear was building block for adoration. This sounds bizarre, but what relationship does the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt have to their conditioning in Leviticus?
2.) As the line at the beginning of this entry states, I don't know. But, I will do research into the topic and find out if there is anything to be known.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes!
Do you find culture a necessary component in the understanding of behavior and textual criticism?
Oh, and I shouldn't have said "not harsh, helpful" , this is harsh, but it could also be helpful to a certain people at a certain time.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 03:34 pm
rmurphy wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
revel wrote:
1Cr 6:8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!
1Cr 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,* nor sodomites,
1Cr 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.



What is that supposed to mean?


This is an interesting set of verses. It almost seems to be the New Testament version of what was stated at the beginning of this forum. Try thinking in terms of world view, or more to the point, the point of your life. I don't believe the author means anyone who does this act such as drunkenness is going to hell, but rather, if this is your life, this is all you are, this is the extent of you as a living person then you have lost the idea of the scriptures. Paul is arguing against what he has heard about from letters and word of mouth about the NT church at Corinth. A principal feature or statement from Paul is that we (as followers of Christ) are supposed to be above reproach. The members of the church did not exhibit any fundamental difference from anyone else, in essence they were behaving the same and partaking in the pagan acts of the time and town. I know this sounds rather Cliché, but read "Religions of the Roman Empire" by John Ferguson. This book goes into detail about the acts and circumstances of pagan practices surrounding Corinth and Ephesus. It's also not written in comparison with Christianity and missing the heavily cliché ridden "made for the pulpit" b.s. Anyway, the point is that Paul was trying to get a community to believe past their normal lives. Like the mass people movements of the Persian empire, people have to break out of their normal lifestyle in order to begin again.


I understand where you are coming from, Murphy...but I have a bias in this thing that I will acknowledge is difficult for me to overcome.

Paul was a zealot...and to be honest with you, I think he subverted the message of the good man, Jesus, in ways that essentially destroyed that message.

I find almost nothing of value in Paul...other than the fact that I admire someone with his fire and determination.

So when Paul is quoted in a religious discussion with a Christian...I tend to turn hard. By the way...I find that Christians, when discussing Christianity, damn near always quote Paul...and damn near never quote Jesus.

Interesting to say the least.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 03:38 pm
Re: Take this a step further
rmurphy wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
rmurphy wrote:
...the rules aren't harsh, they are helpful.


...two categories--those who acknowledge that we don't know the answers to unanswerable questions; and those who pretend to know.

1.) As I attempted to state before, the relationship between the OT and other religious and administrative texts of the time period is very strong. We will never fully understand the context from which it was written. Perhaps for the time period fear was building block for adoration. This sounds bizarre, but what relationship does the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt have to their conditioning in Leviticus?


From my previous response, you probably see that I am less concerned with the disparity between the Old Testament and the New....than I am with the disparity between the focus of Jesus and the focus of Paul.





Quote:

Do you find culture a necessary component in the understanding of behavior and textual criticism?



Obviously is it an important component...very important. I don't know if it is "necessary"...but close to it at very least.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 03:45 pm
I like steak. I had steak for lunch.
0 Replies
 
furiousflee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 03:48 pm
The OT is based on the Law of God...the law was created so that men could be righteous before God...therfore being unrighteous in the sight of God led to death it meant that physically they were put to death. Obviously there were sins that they believed deserved death and then there were sins that didn't, but you can't look at the OT of the Bible and not at the NT. The NT basically completes the law and makes you live under grace therfore making you righteous through the act of Christ. If you were to base your life on the OT you would be trying to live through works which is futile in the sight of God, therfor still living on the works of the law you would still be condemning yourself to death, since the law is a condemning law, whereas the law of grace is the opposite...
0 Replies
 
furiousflee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 03:57 pm
You see, many people read the Bible out of context, to fully understand the NT you must understand the OT. Have you ever wondered why Jesus is called the ultimate sacrifice...I know, but people needs to just ask and I will explain....
0 Replies
 
rmurphy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:00 pm
I understand where you are coming from, Murphy...but I have a bias in this thing that I will acknowledge is difficult for me to overcome.

Paul was a zealot...and to be honest with you, I think he subverted the message of the good man, Jesus, in ways that essentially destroyed that message.

I find almost nothing of value in Paul...other than the fact that I admire someone with his fire and determination.

So when Paul is quoted in a religious discussion with a Christian...I tend to turn hard. By the way...I find that Christians, when discussing Christianity, damn near always quote Paul...and damn near never quote Jesus.

Interesting to say the least.
Quote:


You make a good point. To be honest, I'm not crazy about Paul, he is a bit intense for my tastes. The reason I did quote him on this matter was the because of the Corinthian quote. If the topic was about Jesus I would have quoted Jesus. I also admire his determination and passion, but it is the topic that I most admire. If I knew Paul I would have knocked him out, he seems like the kind of guy that would get on my case for sleeping past 5am...

What is truly interesting to me is the fact that the entire volume of quotes by Jesus would barely take up four pages of type. I find inspiration in the fact that his work and few words has inspired so many millions of people. I also think much is missing in our view of him. The church is extremely complicated and in most places corrupt. It was the simplicity of the words of Christ that actually makes sense. The confusion is then found in dealing with Jesus and the law. I wrote a 60 page paper in college on this topic. Im not sure about this, but I like to place the OT in boxes. I like to separate Levitical law and the 10 commandments into different categories. This makes Jesus words make more sense. I think of the "law" as Jesus spoke of it into the category of the big picture, the moral law and code all people recognize (coupled with the principles of life and death) and most adhere to. The other parts are a temporary work used out of necessity for a certain place and time. Does this make any sense? To be honest, I still go back and forth. Any ideas on this?
0 Replies
 
furiousflee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:12 pm
Quote:
I find almost nothing of value in Paul...other than the fact that I admire someone with his fire and determination.

How can you not find nothing of value in Paul, he was the one who spread the word the furthest, and he wrote most of the NT. I believe that Jesus chose him for this very reason, to be the preacher to the "gentiles" since Jesus' mission was not to save the gentiles but to save the Jews which most of them rejected him, and it was Paul who reached out to the gentiles...hanging with the greeks and the romans and so on....the impact of Jesus on paul made Paul spread the news to all those that was near him...I believe the value of paul was great...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:17 pm
Here's the way I deal with that stuff, Murphy.

Whenever I get into a debate, discussion, or argument with a Christian on any issue of morality...I always ask them to quote Jeusus on the matter.

That almost always effectively ends the discussion, because almost all of the things that seem important to Christians can only be argued by quoting Paul.

Jesus said almost nothing about most of the things that matter today to Christians.

Abortion; pornography; homosexuality????

Where is it?

And so many of the things that matter hugely to conservative Christians are in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus.

Public prayer???

Jesus says that one should never do it. Go to your room is what he advises. Do it in public and you are a hypocrite, he suggests.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:19 pm
furiousflee wrote:
Quote:
I find almost nothing of value in Paul...other than the fact that I admire someone with his fire and determination.

How can you not find nothing of value in Paul, he was the one who spread the word the furthest, and he wrote most of the NT. I believe that Jesus chose him for this very reason...


Jesus didn't choose Paul...Paul decided to hijack the teachings of Jesus...and in doing so, he distorted and destroyed the focus of Jesus.

MY GUESS: Jesus would have thrown Paul out on his ass.



Quote:
I believe the value of paul was great...


Yes you do.

I think he effectively destroyed what Jesus stood for.

Obviously we have a disagreement.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:21 pm
furiousflee wrote:
You see, many people read the Bible out of context...


That I agree with.

And most of the people doing that are zealous Christians bent on justifying stuff that would have made Jesus gag!
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:21 pm
CarbonSystem wrote:
I thought the part about eating red meat is especially ridiculous. My question about the bible is this, who was given the power to write the words that are now reveered as holy? We have no idea now who wrote them. They can be wild exaggerations and sometimes even totally false, and yet some people take the messages literally.


Too bad there wasnt a way to track the ' writers ' of the bible. i would be interested ( not in a religious sence ) to see the line of hands that have written and re written the bible over the few hundred years it has been in existance.
Even today, we can watch people pick up the bible, read it , then explain it as THEY see the meaning. Church leaders, deacons, pastors the like.. ALL do just that. So I agree with your question.. And I pose another one.

The catholic church, today, is changing the bible to include more of the mother mary's life in it. They say themselves that ' as an important person in the story of jesus, she has no record of her life for people to learn from'.
Hmm... so where are they getting this record? What the hell??? They were not there. So are they going to speculate and make that holy?
There are 7 diffrent versions of the bible. All popular, and have spawned thier own versions of christianity. With something so diluded and physical visable proof that it is diluded on a daily basis, how does a book warrant the 'set in stone' life rules???? >sigh<
this is one of the many reasons I am not christian and continue to question that religion.
0 Replies
 
furiousflee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:22 pm
Thats because Jesus never preached religious Christianity...he preached more relationship with God, to be a family with him rather than to be religious about it...Jesus did not like the Pharisees since they focused on religion rather than the relationship with their Creator...so therefore the people who claim to be Christians and live religiously are really not Christians at all....they try to please God through works and not through faith, which was one of the essential teachings of Christ...
0 Replies
 
furiousflee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:24 pm
On the virgen mother mary deal, she ain't a virgen no more...obviously they refer to her being virgen having Jesus, but Jesus never said that you should worship`her, since that would be idoletry...and thats not on...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/03/2022 at 09:07:59