Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would agree with you if the only reference to homosexuality in the entire Bible was in Leviticus and if Jesus didn't explicitly define marriage between a man and a woman, but that's not the case.
You can't get around Romans 1. Your temple prostitution argument, no matter how many times you parrot it or how many liberal talking heads say its the truth doesn't hold weight. Christ said we are supposed to deny ourselves daily, take up our crosses and follow him. That means following Christ requires one to sacrifice and suppress their sinful desires. It does not mean twist the words of scripture so you don't have to follow it when you don't like what it says.
Excellent post-
I have been strongly convicted that Jesus would not approve of the widespread toleration of homosexuality and abortions that are present in many liberal denominations.
When the crowd was ready to stone the woman who had been caught in the very act of adultery in John chapter 8, He told them: [7] He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
When the crowd walked out one by one, He was left with the woman and asked her: [10]Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? [11] She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Whenever a believer truly repents, Jesus and His Father give him the the gift of the Holy Spirit which makes it possible for him to abstain from willful sins. As Paul states in Rom. 7 , he or she is now equipped to be [6] delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
This does not mean we are free to go on committing wilfull sins. In fact Heb. 10:26 says [26] For if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, [which comes only with true repentance and receiving the Holy Spirit] there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, As I understand it this becomes the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, for which there is no forgiveness. A person who has only a superficial belief in Jesus as his Savior, has not been given the Holy Spirit. Peter said in Acts 5:[32] And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. As said in Heb. 10:[36] For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
Liberal Christianity is not true Christianity anymore when they deny one or more of the five essentials of the faith. Those essentials are:
1. The Trinity: God is one "What" and three "Whos" with each "Who" possessing all the attributes of Deity and personality.
2. The Person of Jesus Christ: Jesus is 100% God and 100% man for all eternity.
3. The Second Coming: Jesus Christ is coming bodily to earth to rule and judge.
4. Salvation: It is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
5. The Scripture: It is entirely inerrant and sufficient for all Christian life.
Hate to break it to you, but where are those 5 tenants required or listed to be a true Christian? Fundamentalism may follow them, but that's a cult movement invented in the 19th Century. Scripture being inerrant is not Biblical (and do not quote 2 Timothy 3:16, since you will butcher that verse too), nor historical. The early church fathers did not hold the view of inerrancy that Fundamentalists do.
Actually that is the teaching of many conservative Baptist churches. Liberal churches don't teach the need to trust in Christ as Lord and Savior but rather fully being in touch with one's inner desires and living a politically correct lifestyle.
You are very, very wrong. I know alot of so-called "liberal" Christians that take Jesus as Lord VERY seriously in ways your average backwoods ignoramus could not.
Quote:
According to liberal Christianity, in order to love as Christ did you must throw out the entire concept of sin and affirm everyone according to their own definition of morality, telling them that God approves of everything they do. That couldn't be any more at odds with what the Bible really does say.
Jesus also sought to engage with everyone, and IMO that is what liberal Christians try and do. Engage and get people into relationships of honesty and openness before they start judging peoples behaviors. On the other hand, you seem perfectly OK to condem peoples behaviors without understanding their lives in a meaningful way.
You are very wrong if you think "liberal" Christians have no concept of personal responsibility or sin. But what is right and wrong for an individual is not up to some half-educated backwoods preacher's outdated biblical exegesis.
You are very wrong if you think "liberal" Christians have no concept of personal responsibility or sin. But what is right and wrong for an individual is not up to some half-educated backwoods preacher's outdated biblical exegesis.
What is it up to then? You are right in that its not up to a backwoods preacher's exegesis. It is up to the Bible though. Liberal Christianity seems to define right or wrong, for the most part, by what is acceptable and unacceptable in modern culture, not how the Bible defines it.
What is it up to then? You are right in that its not up to a backwoods preacher's exegesis. It is up to the Bible though. Liberal Christianity seems to define right or wrong, for the most part, by what is acceptable and unacceptable in modern culture, not how the Bible defines it.
The Bible has been defined differently since it was written. The fact that you think an English translation is a word for word duplicate of the originals is laughably naive. Those words on the page have to be processed through your brain, and no matter how much you want to pretend you don't, that process results in an interpretation of the text. No 2 interpretations are identical.
You clearly have never studied Biblical canonization. The amount of liberties that have been taken with compiling it are staggering.
Proof that you reject the very claim you're making is if I show you a verse claiming the sun revolves around the earth and the earth doesn't move. You would claim it's metaphoric or poetic, and yet that's not how anyone translated until relatively recently in history. But you're projecting your knowledge onto the text to remove a glaring scientific error.
The very proof that you reject the very claim your making is if I show you a verse claiming the sun revolves around the earth and the earth doesn't move. You would claim it's metaphoric or poetic, and yet that's not how anyone translated until relatively recently in history. But you're projecting your knowledge onto the text to remove a glaring scientific error.
I get it. You enjoy sex with other men. It's very pleasurable to you so you have come up with a way to twist scripture into saying something different than what it actually says in order to justify it and ease your conscience. I enjoy all kinds of sins and at times have tried and still try to twist scripture in my mind to justify them but in the end the Bible says what it says and God is the ultimate judge.
The Bible has been defined differently since it was written. The fact that you think an English translation is a word for word duplicate of the originals is laughably naive. Those words on the page have to be processed through your brain, and no matter how much you want to pretend you don't, that process results in an interpretation of the text. No 2 interpretations are identical.
You clearly have never studied Biblical canonization. The amount of liberties that have been taken with compiling it are staggering.
Proof that you reject the very claim you're making is if I show you a verse claiming the sun revolves around the earth and the earth doesn't move. You would claim it's metaphoric or poetic, and yet that's not how anyone translated until relatively recently in history. But you're projecting your knowledge onto the text to remove a glaring scientific error.
You have deemed the scriptures are twisted from what the Jews had it as. Are you sure that you are not doing what the Lord said the Jews back in the did and had an ignorance? There is not a Jews scripture nor a catholic scripture-ITS ALL ONE SCRIPTURE. What you are doing is being a Jefferson christian and saying the scripture is not translated right. I think if you read the Bible and know it, then you won't need the scriptures to know what God's will is. From praying and learning about God in the Bible, then you will know what his will is.
Anyways, the people who believe homosexuality and abortion and sex-before marriage is okay have the right to believe it, but you do not have the right to preach that opinion to others as many people it's wrong teachings and should be up to people to come to their own conclusion anyways.
Anyways, maybe it's time to end this "is liberal Christianity right" discussion and get back to the topic about why liberal christian churches are not doing well, as I feel there is a mini flame war going and the pro-liberal Christianity view people are just causing flame wars.
I've never had sex with men. I'm currently celibate. But nice try.
Quote:
It's very pleasurable to you so you have come up with a way to twist scripture into saying something different than what it actually says in order to justify it and ease your conscience.
I have no clue whether it's pleasurable or not. You seem to know more than I do. I'm not twisting scripture. I'm looking at the original meaning. I'm also Jewish, and most Jews reject Leviticus having anything to do with homosexuality in the modern context. I don't have a lot of respect for most Christians or their interpretation of the Bible. Very few are actually intelligent or educated enough to ascertain what it means. They are so brainwashed they will use whatever they've been taught as justification for their hate. That's why the most Bible law abuses occur in the Bible Belt.
Quote:
I enjoy all kinds of sins and at times have tried and still try to twist scripture in my mind to justify them but in the end the Bible says what it says and God is the ultimate judge.
You keep trying to claim what the Bible says, and yet you refuse to actually acknowledge the complication of the Bible not being written in 21st Century English. You quote Leviticus in English, when it was written in Hebrew, and barely makes sense in Hebrew let alone English. You also quote it, while completely ignoring the glaring contextual problem that's well evident. And then you completely ignore how Jewish law works, which proves it can't be referring to homosexuality, in fact the Talmud states that no man has ever been charged with that crime. You ignore that the Torah laws were written specifically for the Ancient Israelites. You ignore well over 500 of the 613 Mitzvah, and yet have the audacity to cherry pick one verse to condemn a group of people you don't like or understand.
Sorry, but it's you who has the issue here. It's you twisting scripture to suit your prejudice.
I've never had sex with men. I'm currently celibate. But nice try.
I have no clue whether it's pleasurable or not. You seem to know more than I do. I'm not twisting scripture. I'm looking at the original meaning. I'm also Jewish, and most Jews reject Leviticus having anything to do with homosexuality in the modern context. I don't have a lot of respect for most Christians or their interpretation of the Bible. Very few are actually intelligent or educated enough to ascertain what it means. They are so brainwashed they will use whatever they've been taught as justification for their hate. That's why the most Bible law abuses occur in the Bible Belt.
You keep trying to claim what the Bible says, and yet you refuse to actually acknowledge the complication of the Bible not being written in 21st Century English. You quote Leviticus in English, when it was written in Hebrew, and barely makes sense in Hebrew let alone English. You also quote it, while completely ignoring the glaring contextual problem that's well evident. And then you completely ignore how Jewish law works, which proves it can't be referring to homosexuality, in fact the Talmud states that no man has ever been charged with that crime. You ignore that the Torah laws were written specifically for the Ancient Israelites. You ignore well over 500 of the 613 Mitzvah, and yet have the audacity to cherry pick one verse to condemn a group of people you don't like or understand.
Sorry, but it's you who has the issue here. It's you twisting scripture to suit your prejudice.
Fiyero expect for people to be defensive and hostile if you attack the OP's main statement
Fiyero expect for people to be defensive and hostile if you attack the OP's main statement
Right....and expect people to be skeptical if making a case requires the Intellectual twists and turns worthy of a Chinese acrobat. Jesus used to challenge exactly this sort of pontificating. It is a blessing from God that you pharasees are so easy to spot. Like any other dangerous thing, it makes it easier to walk around you.
FWIW.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excellent post-
