Started By
Message
re: Will homosexuality be Christianity's bane?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:11 am to Duke
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:11 am to Duke
quote:
Stoning your kids for disobedience is ok
Spare the rod and spoil the child. Of course we wouldn't hit kids with rods, no way. Slapping them on the arse will fulfill god's wishes just fine.
1
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:31 am to Stonehog
quote:But therein lies a confusion about the law of God.
I doubt anyone in this thread has ever put a gay person to death, the way the bible instructs.
The 10 Commandments are a summation of the moral law of God. The moral law of God is a reflection of God's character and it never changes.
The 10 Commandments were further broken down into specific case law for use in both the nation of Israel (the civil law) and for the religious worship of God for the nation of Israel (ceremonial law).
The civil law was intended to be specific for the nation of Israel as a means of practical governance of the people through Godly morality. Laws like putting a fence around your roof or not muzzling oxen while they are used for work are examples of things that the nation of Israel was required to do that we aren't, because we don't belong to the geo-political body of Israel that God created and set a king over as a foreshadowing of the spiritual Israel that would come through faith in Christ.
The ceremonial law is very similar. Things like sacrifices, rejection of certain foods, and "cleanliness" codes are examples of this type of law that was intended to point to a spiritual reality in Christ. These laws were to keep the people "ceremonially clean" and set apart as a nation. In the NT, we are "made clean" by our faith in Christ, and thus these types of laws don't apply any longer because they are not needed.
So, when someone points to mixing threads or stoning homosexuals as an example of how Christians are picking and choosing what they want to believe, I have to say that those making such accusations have no clue what they are talking about.
The moral law of God is still intact because God doesn't change and neither does his moral character. That means covetousness and stealing are wrong, regardless of what age we live, as well as sexual sins like fornication, adultery, and homosexuality (since this is what the topic is about).
What is different is what you do with those sins. Since we don't live in a theocratic nation where the daily lives of people are ruled by the practical application of the Bible, the government can choose to put people to death for certain things or not do it. Christians that aren't part of the government can not and should not kill anyone for any sin; that's the job of the government if they choose to do that.
The responsibility of the Christian is to preach the Gospel of Christ and call all men to repentance of sin and faith in Jesus. Homosexuality is one sin among many, but we shouldn't think that just because we are supposed to love people that we are supposed to accept sin. We should be seeking to repent of our own sins as well as call others to repentance of theirs.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 12:57 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
Will Christianity still be worth following in 50 years when it has been established that the bible can be changed to reflect changes in society?
I'm not sure about the 50 year thing, could be more or less, but at some point God will intervene and make a society adjustment. Always has, always will. And it won't be pretty.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:04 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Spare the rod and spoil the child.
Once again, get a little more knowledge on this subject if you want to debate. That's not even in the Bible.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:25 pm to LittleJerrySeinfield
quote:
Once again, get a little more knowledge on this subject if you want to debate. That's not even in the Bible.
This.
That was a minor bobble, Stonehog, but it might be enough to knock you off the podium
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:35 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
his is a common misconception, but it is inaccurate.
Jesus' teachings were nothing new. He took the OT teachings and displayed their true meanings, usually culminating in something about Himself being God and Savior or what it means to obey the law (love your neighbor and love God).
Those who think Jesus is that weak hippie ignore how He treated those who profaned the Temple, and they also ignore what He will do when He returns: He's a fierce warrior who will slay His enemies on the day of judgement. That, however, is not the reason for His first coming, so His mission was to obey the law of God and teaching others the way of Salvation.
Jesus said that He and the Father (God of the OT) are one. They aren't mutually exclusive at all.
The misconception is in the historical origins of judaism.
The first five books of the OT, which were not actually written by Moses or anywhere near the time he would gave existed, drip with polytheism. Yahweh was originally an ancient polytheistic god of war, believed in along with other gods by many people in the region including the Hebrews. Over time he became the main God worshipped by the hebrews who were constantly under seige by other tribes. Ultimately his entire concept was shifted to that of monotheism during the Babylonian exile and only the later books of the OT reflect this. Additionally, it is likely many edits were made after this point to the original books of Moses to try and reflect more monotheistic beliefs.
The God who destroyed Sodom, flooded the world and brought Jericho down was a polytheistic war God who liked to rage. He is literally a different concept than the post-Babylonian God of the NT.
Here are some great videos explaining the history of the Judeo-Christian God very thoroughly:
LINK
LINK
LINK
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:40 pm to beejon
quote:
I'm not sure about the 50 year thing, could be more or less, but at some point God will intervene and make a society adjustment. Always has, always will. And it won't be pretty.
Always has, huh?
The middle east is going on 1500 years of Islamic driven violence, China is at around 6000 years without the God of the bible and Africans have been slaughtering each other with or without God since the dawn of man.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:54 pm to LittleJerrySeinfield
quote:
That's not even in the Bible.
Semantics.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:59 pm to LittleJerrySeinfield
quote:
Once again, get a little more knowledge on this subject if you want to debate. That's not even in the Bible.
Um...
Proverbs 13:24
quote:
Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
but the one who loves their children is sure to discipline them
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:43 pm to Roger Klarvin
There's almost too much in those videos to rebut in this forum. It would take pages and pages to show how skewed that information is.
But basically, the basis for the argument is that, based on archaeological evidence, Judaism came after other religions from the same area that held some similar beliefs, and that some of those beliefs are hinted at in the OT. Therefore, Judaism is just an altered version of several other religions and the OT is a forgery and edited time after time to become something it isn't, with the ultimate conclusion that the God of the OT is not the same God of the NT (He's a God of war rather than a God of peace). Also, because the Bible references other "gods" (elohim), that remnants of those polytheistic religions exist in the text, proving that the OT doesn't describe a monotheistic God, therefore disproving the authenticity of both the text as well as the religion.
I'll start by saying that if the Bible (OT) is accurate, then it makes sense that the archaeological evidence would show that Judaism "started" up in the midst of and "after" other religions in the area. If the OT timeline happened as it describes, then the truth that God gave to Adam and his descendants would have potentially been lost and/or perverted over time (after the flood and Noah, and after the tower of Babel), to the point where the truth was distorted. God, therefore, would have taken someone (Abraham) from among the peoples who didn't have the truth any longer and set things straight for him. That information was then passed down by his descendants through oral tradition until it was eventually written down and kept as a holy book.
The issue here is that it is assumed that the archaeological evidence tells the whole story (that it is chronological) and suggests that the people of Judaism came from other groups, that the religion they believed must have been some variant of an existing religion or religions, rather than the truth that existed before the other religions, and was made known, by God, to Abraham and his children, down through Moses, David, and so on. This is explained by the Bible, itself, and archaeology, unfortunately, cannot always tell the truth of the matter since it is entirely dependent upon evidence surviving and being interpreted correctly.
The second issue is about polytheism in the OT, which suggests that it was taken from other religions. This was actually a problem for me, personally, until a few years ago when I learned about the concept of "the divine council", the watchers, and other heavenly beings which are referred to as "elohim" (which can be translated as the generic term for gods). The problem with the interpretation of "elohim" as "gods" is that Samuel is referred to as an elohim when conjured by the Witch of Endor for Saul. The common denominator for the term is location, not function. It refers to anyone/anything that resides in the spirit world, which God does, as He is spirit. Therefore, God is just one of many "elohim" (gods), but the only creator, all-powerful God of the universe. He is not a god of war in some pantheon, but He is the almighty God who is unlike all other elohim (gods).
That view makes a lot of sense of some previously-troublesome passages in the Bible. It also gets into some weird stuff about the elohim who were allotted peoples (God took the nation of Israel for Himself) and it even gets in to some stuff with the giants and demons. It's very interesting stuff, but it does not invalidate the religion or the text by itself and it doesn't prove that the religion is some conglomerate of surrounding religions. If anything, it can explain very well the similarities between Judaism and the other religions of the area: that the truth was skewed and those elohim "in charge" of those regions and peoples misled them away from the truth, so God had to choose a people for Himself and reveal the truth to them rightly.
Ultimately, if Jesus was/is God (as I believe He is), then His belief in the validity and truthfulness of the OT confirms to me that the OT is reliable as a source of truth. If Jesus is God, and He and the Father are one, then the OT and the NT display the various attributes of the same God.
But basically, the basis for the argument is that, based on archaeological evidence, Judaism came after other religions from the same area that held some similar beliefs, and that some of those beliefs are hinted at in the OT. Therefore, Judaism is just an altered version of several other religions and the OT is a forgery and edited time after time to become something it isn't, with the ultimate conclusion that the God of the OT is not the same God of the NT (He's a God of war rather than a God of peace). Also, because the Bible references other "gods" (elohim), that remnants of those polytheistic religions exist in the text, proving that the OT doesn't describe a monotheistic God, therefore disproving the authenticity of both the text as well as the religion.
I'll start by saying that if the Bible (OT) is accurate, then it makes sense that the archaeological evidence would show that Judaism "started" up in the midst of and "after" other religions in the area. If the OT timeline happened as it describes, then the truth that God gave to Adam and his descendants would have potentially been lost and/or perverted over time (after the flood and Noah, and after the tower of Babel), to the point where the truth was distorted. God, therefore, would have taken someone (Abraham) from among the peoples who didn't have the truth any longer and set things straight for him. That information was then passed down by his descendants through oral tradition until it was eventually written down and kept as a holy book.
The issue here is that it is assumed that the archaeological evidence tells the whole story (that it is chronological) and suggests that the people of Judaism came from other groups, that the religion they believed must have been some variant of an existing religion or religions, rather than the truth that existed before the other religions, and was made known, by God, to Abraham and his children, down through Moses, David, and so on. This is explained by the Bible, itself, and archaeology, unfortunately, cannot always tell the truth of the matter since it is entirely dependent upon evidence surviving and being interpreted correctly.
The second issue is about polytheism in the OT, which suggests that it was taken from other religions. This was actually a problem for me, personally, until a few years ago when I learned about the concept of "the divine council", the watchers, and other heavenly beings which are referred to as "elohim" (which can be translated as the generic term for gods). The problem with the interpretation of "elohim" as "gods" is that Samuel is referred to as an elohim when conjured by the Witch of Endor for Saul. The common denominator for the term is location, not function. It refers to anyone/anything that resides in the spirit world, which God does, as He is spirit. Therefore, God is just one of many "elohim" (gods), but the only creator, all-powerful God of the universe. He is not a god of war in some pantheon, but He is the almighty God who is unlike all other elohim (gods).
That view makes a lot of sense of some previously-troublesome passages in the Bible. It also gets into some weird stuff about the elohim who were allotted peoples (God took the nation of Israel for Himself) and it even gets in to some stuff with the giants and demons. It's very interesting stuff, but it does not invalidate the religion or the text by itself and it doesn't prove that the religion is some conglomerate of surrounding religions. If anything, it can explain very well the similarities between Judaism and the other religions of the area: that the truth was skewed and those elohim "in charge" of those regions and peoples misled them away from the truth, so God had to choose a people for Himself and reveal the truth to them rightly.
Ultimately, if Jesus was/is God (as I believe He is), then His belief in the validity and truthfulness of the OT confirms to me that the OT is reliable as a source of truth. If Jesus is God, and He and the Father are one, then the OT and the NT display the various attributes of the same God.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:57 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:30 pm to RTOTA
I don't like to reference AIG for the mere reason that they are ridiculed by just about everyone, so take what they say with a grain of salt (especially about the radiocarbon dating, which may or may not be true, but is generally denied by those with a naturalistic worldview), but they are also the only ones I could readily find to give some sort of defense of the camel issue in the Bible.
To summarize: it sounds like the study is not definitive by any means and doesn't mean that camels could not have existed in the region during the times mentioned in the Bible, just that they were not prominent until much later.
But even if we assume the OT was "edited" to use an animal that was common during later times, it does not change anything substantial about the text. It's just nitpicking, IMO.
quote:AIG: Camels
Yet even beyond the technical issues with the dating methods, could there be other reasons that might allow for the presence of domestic camels in the herds of Abraham while they were not yet a prominent feature between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba? A look at the map should make the answer clear.
There is no reason to assume that the abrupt appearance of camel bones at a certain level in the copper mining region of the southern Aravah Valley precludes their use as pack animals by Abraham and his nomadic neighbors. Abraham entered the Levant from a northerly route, visited Egypt, and returned to the Levant where he remained the rest of his life. Whether or not camel-dependent trade routes across the Aravah Valley into the Arabian Peninsula were yet established has no bearing on the use of camels by people in the more westerly portions of the Levant. And while Egypt’s domination of the region after the time of Solomon could well have resulted in more intensive use of camels through the valley, that also in no way demonstrates that camels weren’t used as pack animals elsewhere in the Levant for millennia before that.
To summarize: it sounds like the study is not definitive by any means and doesn't mean that camels could not have existed in the region during the times mentioned in the Bible, just that they were not prominent until much later.
But even if we assume the OT was "edited" to use an animal that was common during later times, it does not change anything substantial about the text. It's just nitpicking, IMO.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:38 pm to PrivatePublic
Religion thread.
Mofo in!
Mofo in!
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:40 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
But basically, the basis for the argument is that, based on archaeological evidence, Judaism came after other religions from the same area that held some similar beliefs, and that some of those beliefs are hinted at in the OT.
If this is all you got from my post and those videos, there is no real reason to discuss this further.
The evidence is ABUNDANT. Many of the greatest old and new testament scholars, and well as bronze age historians, acknowledge that the Hebrews were once a polytheistic people and were so MUCH later than Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would have lived if they did in fact exist. Even more interesting, the majority of the aforementioned scholars are NOT jewish or Christian precisely because with careful research the evidence points to exactly what I've described.
quote:
Ultimately, if Jesus was/is God (as I believe He is), then His belief in the validity and truthfulness of the OT confirms to me that the OT is reliable as a source of truth. If Jesus is God, and He and the Father are one, then the OT and the NT display the various attributes of the same God.
Which is a big reason why I no longer believe. Parts of the OT are demonstrably false (Worldwide flood, all people merging from a single human, the exodus from Egypt, etc.) and there is no evidence for many other things. The fact that Jesus clearly believed all of it is cause for doubt.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 5:44 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:40 pm to 870Hog
quote:
Religion thread.
frick these threads.
And I'm very religious
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:43 pm to TbirdSpur2010
I was raised Lutheran.
Now... Not so much. Put it this way my entire family got pissed at my grandmothers funeral a few months ago because the Preacher tried to preach.
Damned Southern Baptist preachers.
Now... Not so much. Put it this way my entire family got pissed at my grandmothers funeral a few months ago because the Preacher tried to preach.
Damned Southern Baptist preachers.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:46 pm to FooManChoo
Answers in genesis has been dissected across all corners of the internet.
To summarize it: They flat out make stuff up and ignore citing sources for many of their claims.
To summarize it: They flat out make stuff up and ignore citing sources for many of their claims.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:46 pm to 870Hog
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:53 pm to 870Hog
I claim no denomination. Have had terrific experiences in Southern Baptist, United Methodist, Nondenomenational, and Nazarene churches.
Have also had shitty experiences at several different denoms.
Have also had shitty experiences at several different denoms.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:58 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Have also had shitty experiences at several different denoms.
I would cover my ears and cry at my moms Southern Baptist church when I was little. Preacher screaming how everyone is going to hell.
Needless to say she stopped taking me there and we became Lutheran where you sit down, shut up, and leave.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News