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.
Because that's what Jesus would tell them? Because that's what Jesus told the woman caught in adultery? Because that's what Jesus would say to anyone caught up in conduct the Bible condemns? Because they may be on the road to eternal damnation? Because "loving" a sinner includes honesty and the proclamation of the gospel message, not tolerance or celebration of his sins?
Jesus said "Go and sin no more." He didn't say, "It's OK, dear, you're no worse than anyone else."
What a bizarre post. What a bizarre perspective.
Interesting that you would bring up the woman caught in adultery. Jesus spoke those oft thrown around words to the woman AFTER he told her he did not condemn her.
And he did NOT say "go and don't do just this particular sin anymore."
It is the call to all of us, "Go and sin no more." How do any of us sin no more? By going to the cross and seeing all of our sin nailed to the cross with Christ. By seeing them cast away from us as far as east is from the west. By hearing the Lord say "I remember them no more." He was pointing her to the cross that he was soon to die on. That, friend is the ONLY WAY we can sin no more.
If you think that your life must be one of sinless perfection before you can come to Jesus, you have totally missed the gospel message. If you lay several hoops and hurdles for someone to come to the cross of Christ, you have missed the gospel.
Jesus went to this woman in the middle of her being outed for her sin. She probably was not fully dressed as the accusers caught her in the act and drug her out to stone her. He did not mention her sexual misdeeds at all, did not command her to show any form of repentance, just wrote in the sand and spoke the famous line to the accusers that saw each drop their stone and walk away. Then he asked her where were her accusers and then said this line that you and I need to repeat a million times to the world that does not know Jesus before we once speak about someone's sexual behavior. NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU.
He was more concerned with her salvation than her sexual behavior. We should feel the same about anyone.
Last edited by Saintmarks; 07-04-2019 at 08:10 AM..
Who the hell do think they are to tell them go sin more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball
Because that's what Jesus would tell them? Because that's what Jesus told the woman caught in adultery? Because that's what Jesus would say to anyone caught up in conduct the Bible condemns? Because they may be on the road to eternal damnation? Because "loving" a sinner includes honesty and the proclamation of the gospel message, not tolerance or celebration of his sins?
Jesus said "Go and sin no more." He didn't say, "It's OK, dear, you're no worse than anyone else."
What a bizarre post. What a bizarre perspective.
The point being made by pcamps IS that no one is in any position to tell someone else to 'Go and sin no more'. Jeff, Finn, BaptistFundie, you, me, all of us are biblical sinners (i.e. unrighteous) so how the heck can we so piously tell someone else to 'Go and sin no more'? Only Jesus can do that. Those pcamps is addressing HAVE played the Jesus role and they really do need to stop.
As for Jesus allegedly having told the woman caught in adultery to "Go and sin no more", try reading between the lines, Nerfball and others. WHY would Jesus have said that ...IF, He indeed, DID say that? Jesus would have been well aware that the woman would sin again because she was human. I believe that Jesus may well have said this with a wink ...sort of tongue-in-cheek. I mean, he's just sent the woman's accusers on their way having exposed them for the hypocrites that they were. Then Jesus asks the woman, "Where are your accusers?" Jesus knows where they are. They've limped away with their tails between their legs. He really doesn't need to ask. So, why DID He ask this question of the woman?
If Jesus ever did exhibit an air of irony and a tad of humor, I believe that THIS was the time that He did so. Even the woman, knowing what had just occurred, played along and answered with, "There are no accusers, Lord." She knew that Jesus already knew that. The aftermath of the event that had just taken place was now playing out like a game between the two of them. To conclude, Jesus (I'm guessing) sent her on her way with a feigned stern tone and a wagging finger ..."Now go away and behave yourself from now on!" with (I can just imagine) a slight smile on His face.
I believe a similar example of this irony by Jesus is when He remarks that even lusting after a woman in thought is tantamount to having committed adultery. Jesus knew that men (and women) would lust as it's a part of their human nature. I believe that His point was to let those self-righteous ones who are so ready to point the finger at others for sexual infidelity know - while harboring the same thoughts of their own - that they are flaming hypocrites! Jesus didn't actually believe that 'thoughts' are necessarily 'sinful'. He was playing games with the 'fundies'. I'm not really sure that this irony worked on the 'fundies' of His day, however ...nor, apparently, the 'fundies' of today.
Try reading between the lines, Nerfball. It's eye-opening as well as fun!
The point being made by pcamps IS that no one is in any position to tell someone else to 'Go and sin no more'. Jeff, Finn, BaptistFundie, you, me, all of us are biblical sinners (i.e. unrighteous) so how the heck can we so piously tell someone else to 'Go and sin no more'? Only Jesus can do that. Those pcamps is addressing HAVE played the Jesus role and they really do need to stop.
As for Jesus allegedly having told the woman caught in adultery to "Go and sin no more", try reading between the lines, Nerfball and others. WHY would Jesus have said that ...IF, He indeed, DID say that? Jesus would have been well aware that the woman would sin again because she was human. I believe that Jesus may well have said this with a wink ...sort of tongue-in-cheek. I mean, he's just sent the woman's accusers on their way having exposed them for the hypocrites that they were. Then Jesus asks the woman, "Where are your accusers?" Jesus knows where they are. They've limped away with their tails between their legs. He really doesn't need to ask. So, why DID He ask this question of the woman?
If Jesus ever did exhibit an air of irony and a tad of humor, I believe that THIS was the time that He did so. Even the woman, knowing what had just occurred, played along and answered with, "There are no accusers, Lord." She knew that Jesus already knew that. The aftermath of the event that had just taken place was now playing out like a game between the two of them. To conclude, Jesus (I'm guessing) sent her on her way with a feigned stern tone and a wagging finger ..."Now go away and behave yourself from now on!" with (I can just imagine) a slight smile on His face.
I believe a similar example of this irony by Jesus is when He remarks that even lusting after a woman in thought is tantamount to having committed adultery. Jesus knew that men (and women) would lust as it's a part of their human nature. I believe that His point was to let those self-righteous ones who are so ready to point the finger at others for sexual infidelity know - while harboring the same thoughts of their own - that they are flaming hypocrites! Jesus didn't actually believe that 'thoughts' are necessarily 'sinful'. He was playing games with the 'fundies'. I'm not really sure that this irony worked on the 'fundies' of His day, however ...nor, apparently, the 'fundies' of today.
Try reading between the lines, Nerfball. It's eye-opening as well as fun!
We are thinking along the same lines. If we do repeat Jesus' words to anyone, speak them to one's self first. I just put this above, the only we we sin no more is to accept the work of the cross as a finished deal over our whole lives. That is what Jesus was saying when he told her to "go and sin no more..." To look just a few weeks into the future at the work he was going to do for her.
We can do the same. Lead people to the cross of Christ.
Hmm. The fact that you felt the need to rush to defend him kind of underscores what I said. Your kid?
Seriously, those of us "of a certain age" who have spent a lot of time around the written word can spot youth and/or immaturity in the way people express themselves, that's all. Particularly when there's clearly an attempt to sound smarter than they are. Not to mention the unedited over-wordiness.
Now back to our regularly-scheduled arguments over homosexuality.
How many times are your going parrot the same thing? The poll I posted from GLAAD is what it is, and it seems to offend you to no end. People, especially the younger ones, are becoming less comfortable with the LGBT.
You posting another poll about something else does not change it. People, including the millennial are ok with equal rights, while being uncomfortable with the LGBT in general and it seems to be because of the militant anger displayed by people like you. They find it hard to support intolerance displayed by those who promote the gay agenda.
Yes, it is what it is, not what you claimed it is. But you won't apologize for attempting to mislead people. Let's quote YOUR words and then the report's words so people can see you practice Joseph Goebbels art of trying to tell a lie until you believe itself.
You said:
Quote:
---the support for LGBT in 18 to 34 demographic group fell from 53% to 45% (less than half). The poll question was if they were "very" or even "somewhat" comfortable with it. This is the second year when the support among this group has fallen, not to mention that this group has been the most supportive in the past.
The reason is obvious. When you become hostile against anyone who does not promote your cause, you come across as a hypocrite who is intolerant, while accusing others of being intolerant. This is the very same thing we have seen in this thread. You cannot demand tolerance while being intolerant yourself.
GLAAD Harris Poll Study Shows Decline in LGBTQ Acceptance Among Millennials
THE REASON IS OBVIOUS, you said:
Poll says:
Quote:
Breaking down the statistics further, GLAAD found more young people ages 18-34 responded that they were “very” or “somewhat” uncomfortable in three personal scenarios including learning a family member was LGBTQ (36 percent uncomfortable in the 2019 report vs. 29 percent in the 2018 report); learning one’s doctor was LGBTQ (34 percent vs. 27 percent); and learning one’s child had a lesson on LGBTQ history in their school (39 percent vs. 30 percent).
GLAAD also found that the majority of non-LGBTQ Americans (80 percent) support equal rights for the LGBTQ community. The eight-in-10 statistic has been consistent since 2016, and will bolster campaigners’ hopes for ultimately passing legislation like the Equality Act.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/glaad-...newness-factor Not a single word about millennials angry because of the intolerance of those with a "gay" agenda. Instead they are "uncomfortable" (hardly "rejecting") in three PERSONAL situations.
But corresponding with the drop in their comfort level is the increased violence from YOUR SIDE!
Quote:
A new report from University of Oregon researchers shows bias-based bullying and violence is on the rise in Oregon schools, especially aimed at LGBT students, who experience twice as much verbal, physical, psychological and sexual violence as their peers.
Though the data shows an increase of fatal attacks across all sexual minorities, specific groups are more vulnerable: Transgender women of color make up the largest sector of victims of hate-based homicide. Last year saw at least 27 transgender Americans murdered, with all but three were women of color. In addition, the homicide rate for gay/bi cisgender men increased 500%, from four in 2016 to 20 in 2017.
Interesting that you would bring up the woman caught in adultery. Jesus spoke those oft thrown around words to the woman AFTER he told her he did not condemn her.
I brought up the adultery pericope (which isn't in the earliest manuscripts of the gospel of John but is universally accepted as being consistent with who Jesus was) because pccamps used the very phrase "go and sin no more" in suggesting Jesus would never say such a thing. "Condemnation" in the context of the adultery pericope would have been immediate stoning to death. Obviously, the gospel message, as Jesus made clear, is that even the most egregious sinners can repent and be saved.
Quote:
And he did NOT say "go and don't do just this particular sin anymore."
And so? Did you think I thought that? In the context, "go and sin no more" obviously included the sin of adultery. He certainly didn't say "Just believe in me and don't worry about adultery and that sort of stuff."
Quote:
It is the call to all of us, "Go and sin no more." How do any of us sin no more? By going to the cross and seeing all of our sin nailed to the cross with Christ. By seeing them cast away from us as far as east is from the west. By hearing the Lord say "I remember them no more." He was pointing her to the cross that he was soon to die on. That, friend is the ONLY WAY we can sin no more.
If you think that your life must be one of sinless perfection before you can come to Jesus, you have totally missed the gospel message. If you lay several hoops and hurdles for someone to come to the cross of Christ, you have missed the gospel.
None of us ever goes and sins no more. As Christians we do our best to go and sin no more by prayer and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We recognize that so long as we are in the flesh, we are not capable of sinless perfection even after we have come to Christ. The more we allow the Holy Spirit t work in our lives, the closer we will come to sinless perfection.
Sinful conduct remains sinful conduct, to be dealt with through sincere confession and repentance even after we have come to Christ. Paul makes RATHER CLEAR in Romans that the Christian walk is not a license to sin so (as some were perversely suggesting) God may be glorified even more. Homosexual sin remains homosexual sin, to be dealt with through confession, repentance and perhaps Christian counseling. It is not to be condoned or celebrated, by the Christian homosexual or his or her Christian brothers.
I am not "laying hoops and hurdles." Anyone can repent and come to Christ. A homosexual who does this but continues to engage in homosexual conduct grieves the Holy Spirit and conceivably may be putting his or her salvation at risk. What you are calling hoops and hurdles are simply the biblical definitions and commands as to what constitutes sinful conduct. (I am not going to engage in a "once saved always saved" debate, but by far the strongest biblical position and the one that has been most consistently held since the time of Christ is that once saved is NOT always saved. Coming to Christ opens to door to salvation, but the person who once believed can later slam the door in Jesus' face.)
Quote:
Jesus went to this woman in the middle of her being outed for her sin. She probably was not fully dressed as the accusers caught her in the act and drug her out to stone her. He did not mention her sexual misdeeds at all, did not command her to show any form of repentance, just wrote in the sand and spoke the famous line to the accusers that saw each drop their stone and walk away. Then he asked her where were her accusers and then said this line that you and I need to repeat a million times to the world that does not know Jesus before we once speak about someone's sexual behavior. NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU.
He was more concerned with her salvation than her sexual behavior. We should feel the same about anyone.
Certainly Jesus was more concerned with her salvation than her sexual behavior. Certainly he was making the larger point to her accusers that their hardness of heart (which would have resulted in her immediate death) was more abhorrent to God than her adultery.
Certainly we should be more concerned about a homosexual's salvation than his or her homosexual conduct. By no means do I "condemn" homosexuals; condemnation is up to God. This does not mean we should not be concerned about a homosexual's conduct, which the Bible clearly states is an abomination to God and a bar to entry into the kingdom of heaven. Opening the door to salvation requires sincere confession of and repentance for sins. It's not a matter of "Thank you, Jesus, I'll repent of everything else but I'm not giving up my homosexual activity."
I have witnessed to people and led people to Christ. I don't know how you would witness to a homosexual while ignoring the elephant in the room that his or her homosexuality is a sin that is going to have to be confessed, repented of, and hopefully overcome through prayer and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is not "loving" or accurately presenting the gospel message to a homosexual, adulterer, fornicator or any other sinner to suggest that his or her most glaring sin is really no big deal but in fact something that we in the Christian community can tolerate in our midst, condone or even celebrate.
I understand what folks like you are doing and why, but I believe it is a disservice to the gospel and to homosexuals alike. Over the decades, I have evolved from someone who was willing to water down the gospel message too, but as I have matured I have come to realize that you can't pick and choose those parts of Christianity you like and pretend the rest isn't there.
No, they are not. The poll only shows what they think about the LGBT, and it shows their support is on a decline, and IMO it is because those people who push the agenda have become too hostile and intolerant of anyone who does not fully agree with them. Just look at IMissThe90s, who cannot make one post without an insult of false accusation. It is impossible to have a conversation with people who scream in your face. It is the worst possible way to win supporters, and probably the best way to drive the existing ones away.
FinnJarber, post #8712
Lying Finn just can't read statistics or reports properly:
Quote:
GLAAD also found that the majority of non-LGBTQ Americans (80 percent) support equal rights for the LGBTQ community. The eight-in-10 statistic has been consistent since 2016,--
Your statistics would be in a better range than 80% if you stuck to same sex marriage. But even then you remain a loser:
Quote:
About six-in-ten Americans (61%) support same-sex marriage in the most recent Pew Research Center survey on the issue, conducted in March 2019.
--------- Among white evangelical Protestants, however, only 29% favor same-sex marriage. Still, this is roughly double the level (15%) in 2009.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-sex-marriage/
Apparently all the pro-gay screaming in your face hasn't driven support of gays away, but it has doubled the number of evangelicals that favor (or more likely simply "accept"--see HONESTY in assumptions) gay marriage.
Apologize for your false assumptions. I know you won't, but I want others to see your lying, dodging, twisting, and manipulation of facts to "encourage" your evil fundamentalist agenda. So keep posting on the subject and I'll keep providing the same facts to show you up for what you are. I've now gone and written down the post numbers so I can easily refer people back to what you stated, and then direct them to the GLAAD report you have so misconstrued.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 07-04-2019 at 11:29 AM..
Your statistics would be in a better range than 80% if you stuck to same sex marriage. But even then you remain a loser:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-sex-marriage/
Apparently all the pro-gay screaming in your face hasn't driven support of gays away, but it has doubled the number of evangelicals that favor (or more likely simply "accept"--see HONESTY in assumptions) gay marriage.
Apologize for your false assumptions. I know you won't, but I want others to see your lying, dodging, twisting, manipulation of facts to "encourage" your evil fundamentalist agenda. So keep posting on the subject and I'll keep providing the same facts to show you up for what you are. I've now gone and written down the post numbers so I can easily refer people back to what you stated, and then direct them to the GLAAD report you have so misconstrued.
Good job exposing fundie Finny's deceitful, dishonest MO. He reveals his lack of character with virtually every post.
One becomes an expert in this area just as one becomes an expert in any other historical field. There are REAMS of ancient materials. Loader is the author of, among others, the following:
Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church, co-authored with Megan K. DeFranza, Wesley Hill, and Stephen R. Holmes (Counterpoints; ed. Preston Sprinkle (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016)) Making Sense of Sex: Attitudes towards Sexuality in Early Jewish and Christian Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011) The New Testament on Sexuality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013)
Philo, Josephus, and the Testaments on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in the Writings of Philo, Josephus, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011) The Pseudepigrapha on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in Apocalypses, Testaments, Legends, Wisdom, and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011) Sexuality in the New Testament (London: SPCK, 2010) The Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in Sectarian and Related Literature at Qumran (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) Enoch, Levi, and Jubilees on Sexuality: Attitudes Towards Sexuality in the Early Enoch Literature, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Book of Jubilees (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) Sexuality and the Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) The Septuagint, Sexuality and the New Testament: Case Studies on the Impact of the LXX in Philo and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).
Several of which I have actually purchased and read. Expert? Uh-huh, I think so.
He's not "my" expert. He's a leading pro-LGBTQ proponent.
Homosexual sex is undeniably non-procreative. It isn't that the Jews or Christians were concerned that homosexuality would become so popular their numbers might dwindle. That would have been insane. It was that they believed (and do believe) that procreation is God's fundamental purpose for sexual unions. Non-procreative sex thus was (and is) deemed unnatural and contrary to God's plan for humanity.
Sorry, I don't do YouTube videos on subjects for which there are mountains of serious scholarship.
Heterosexuals, like homosexuals, are fallen creatures in a fallen creation. Heterosexual marriage is viewed as holy and good because it is God's plan for humanity as set forth in the Bible, even thought many such marriages among fallen men and women in a fallen creation are indeed disasters.
If you believe your statement about "Medical Science" you are badly misinformed. Do your research - don't just drink the LGBTQ Kool-Aid. Homosexuality may well have a genetic component. I have always believed that it does. So do many proclivities that society condemns. Having a genetic component does not equate to "natural." Moreover, as I have stated, as Christians understand reality, "natural" since the fall of man has referred to fallen creatures in a fallen creation.
The ancients knew what they observed. There has never been a society where blissful same-sex couples existed in anything resembling the fantasy that the LGBTQ community now promotes. The actual history of homosexual practices as documented by experts such as Loader is considerably more sordid than the "patriarchal" Jewish society the other poster described. That's the reality, like it or not. The modern fallback position for the LGBTQ community - because it is all they have - is that the ancients didn't understand homosexuality as well as we do now. I think they did, in terms of what is important to know about it.
Not all Jews are anti-gay either and they have equally important validations:
Quote:
The halakhic (legal) term ahnoos refers to someone who, though commanded to do something, does not really have a choice in the matter. In Judaism, one is only responsible for religious obligations that one can freely choose to fulfill. Thus some Jewish authorities have argued that since homosexuality is not chosen, its expression cannot be forbidden.
Indeed, the Reform movement does not condemn homosexual sex, and openly gay people are eligible for admittance into Reform rabbinical schools. In addition, the Reform movement approves of rabbinic officiation at same-sex marriages and commitment ceremonies.
So Jews have grown along with most Christians. My daughter-in-law is a conservative Jew and thinks orthodox Jews are plain "creepy."
In addition, there is NO prohibition to lesbianism in the OT. It was a non-issue because women were property. Do you hold that women are property? No. Neither do I. What those verses highlight is that MEN were making their own rules about what God likes and doesn't like. God apparently didn't like a lot of other things listed in the 613 OT laws--but do you follow them? I don't think so. You've found a way to make an EXCEPTION to virtually all the others like not eating shrimp, or not cutting your hair AND having a beard that you do not trim, or wearing clothes made of more than one fabric.
I don't care what excuse you give for "allowing" you to do all those NOW, you made a "choice" that those laws don't apply, just as you hypocritically are making a "choice" about believing this one law is not to be broken.
Your choices reveal more about your nature than about how the "word of God" should be understood. Lots of people, including the Jews you tout understand it differently.
Earlier in this thread the idea of Jonathan and David in Scripture was brought up. Internal biblical evidence is overwhelming that both of them were at least bi-sexual. I think Jonathan was gay but married like your view has forced thousands of gays to do in order to "appear" acceptable to your society. But David was probably Bi and Jonathan was his one and only experience. The Hebrew writer was very careful in His wording but gave some important clues at the same time.
Nature--you mentioned nature? Genetic components do NOT equate to "natural?" What a stupid statement!!!!! Why has God made so many species of animals, fish, reptiles, birds, and insects with a homosexual component? Humans don't even represent the largest percentage of homosexuals within a species.
Quote:
Topping our list of the top 10 gayest animals is none other than the giraffe.
And the reason for choosing the giraffe as our top pick is pretty straightforward; 94% of sexual activity observed among giraffes is actually gay sex!
The genitals of bonobos have actually evolved in order to accommodate gay sex!
Some scientists hold the belief that the genitals of female bonobos are shaped in such a way as to facilitate lesbian sex rather than sex with the opposite gender.
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.
