Why is Bob proud about being homophobic? [Archive] - Theology Forum

.Ant

April 2nd, 2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson
Call him up on his show and ask him.
I live in New Zealand. Toll call + different time zone = not worth it.
Originally posted by Knight
Huh????

What Bible are you reading????
Every Bible I know of says "Love your neighbour as yourself." Jesus also said "Again, anyone who says to his brother, `Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, `You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." Calling someone "gutter-slime" is on this level. It is in no way useful to insult someone like that, and I can't see how it can possibly be loving.

Did Jesus hang out with prostitutes and tax collectors? Yes. Did they count him among their friends? Yes. Did he condone prostitution and extortion? No.
Originally posted by PureX
naima,

Unfortunately, it's not that small of a "minority". I'm thinking about folks like Pat Roberson, and Jerry Falwell, and all Christians that support them, and which they represent.
You're right. It's Christians like these who give the whole of Christianity a bad name. Their stance seems closer to that of the Pharisees than that of Jesus.

Jefferson

April 2nd, 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by .Ant
Firstly, is there anything good about being homophobic?It makes it less likey that you will contract AIDS.

Is there anything good in condemning and alienating homosexuals?Yes. Many homosexuals aren't ashamed of their behavior like they should be. Social ostracism can help them decide to repent.

I'm not condoning homosexuality, which the Bible clearly says is wrong, but condemning and disassociating people is something the Bible speaks against.

Titus 3:10 - "After the first and second warning, reject a man of heresy."
I Corinthians 5:11 - "But now I have written to you not to associate intimately, if any man called a brother and is either a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one not to eat.
I Corinthians 5:13 - "But God judges those who are outside. Therefore put out from you the evil one."

I think if Jesus were alive today, he would not identify himself as a homophobe, that he would be considered a friend of homosexuals.There were homosexuals in Jesus' day. Where are the verses that show he befriended them?

On Bob Enyart Live, 3 Jan 2003 (http://www.kgov.com/bel/2003/20030103-BEL002.mp3), Bob calls "homos" "gutter-slime". Perhaps it is okay to call homosexuals perverts, keeping in mind that we are all guilty of perversion, but "gutter-slime"??What's wrong with "gutter-slime?" The Bible calls them a much worse term. It calls them "reprobates." Besides, is it possible to insult a homosexual worse than they insult themselves by their lifestyle?

.Ant

April 2nd, 2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson
Originally posted by .AntIs there anything good in condemning and alienating homosexuals?
Yes. Many homosexuals aren't ashamed of their behavior like they should be. Social ostracism can help them decide to repent.
Out of context, that is true. But in today's world, in our culture, I don't think it does much good. The majority of society supports them. So you're right, there is some value in a degree of alienation. But I think condemnation of other people is something God speaks against. (In other words, I've softened my original statement).

Don't get me wrong - I am all for condemnation and alienation of homosexuality. But not of homosexuals. The same principle goes for any sin.
Originally posted by Jefferson

Titus 3:10 - "After the first and second warning, reject a man of heresy."
I Corinthians 5:11 - "But now I have written to you not to associate intimately, if any man called a brother and is either a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one not to eat.
I Corinthians 5:13 - "But God judges those who are outside. Therefore put out from you the evil one."

Jesus associated intimately with people others, at least, considered to be fornicators and extortioners. It was a point of pride for the Pharisees to point this out.

Should we condemn and alienate people because they are in sin and bad habits? Should we condemn and alienate say, people who smoke? How about people who ignore God?

Originally posted by Jefferson
There were homosexuals in Jesus' day. Where are the verses that show he befriended them?
I don't think homosexuality is mentioned in the gospels. But the principle that applies to fornicators and extortioners applies to them.

Originally posted by Jefferson
What's wrong with "gutter-slime?" The Bible calls them a much worse term. It calls them "reprobates." Besides, is it possible to insult a homosexual worse than they insult themselves by their lifestyle?
Maybe, but should I call you "gutter-slime" if you lie? Should I label you "gutter-slime" because you have a habit of being rude to people?

Zakath

April 2nd, 2003, 06:02 PM

I think, after reading some of his materials, that Bob's "homophobia" is merely a "schtick"; his showbiz gimmick. He can't abandon it until he finds something just as guarranteed to get the public's interest.

Poly

April 2nd, 2003, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by .Ant

that's not funny.
Says you.
You're a sinner as much as any homo, shall we start insulting you?
If I ever become a homo...(can't believe I just said that) or take pride in any kind of blatent sin, refusing to see that what I'm doing grieves God, therefore refusing to repent , I do hereby beg and plead that as many people as possible would ridicule me, make fun of me and mock me until they are blue in the face! Please make such a spectacle of my life that I become uncomfortable to live it in such arrogant sin.

.Ant

April 2nd, 2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Polycarpadvo

...or take pride in any kind of blatent sin...
And what about not-so-blatent sin? Sin that isn't obvious, that most others don't see? Such sin puts you under God's condemnation as much as homosexuality.

As I said above - how about smoking? Or a habit of being impolite?

4 A.M. Prayer

April 2nd, 2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by naima

.Ant, one thing we can be thankful for is this Enyart brand of Christianity that he, and others, serve up is few and far between and, save a web site, occasional late night broadcast, or obscure publication that may crop up, will forever remain a small minority; the anger in many posts here may well be the result of their knowing this to be true.

Just a bump here, in that none of the "core" posters here has responded to naima's comment.

Poly

April 2nd, 2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by .Ant

And what about not-so-blatent sin? Sin that isn't obvious, that most others don't see? Such sin puts you under God's condemnation as much as homosexuality.

As I said above - how about smoking? Or a habit of being impolite?
All sin puts you under God's condemnation if you are not repentant and admit to Him that you've done wrong. You need to get a clue here ant. We're not talking about those who used to homosexual and have given their lives over to Christ. As I said earlier, we are talking about those who are blatent homosexuals, proud of it, spit in the face of God and have no remorse.

Knight

April 2nd, 2003, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by naima

.Ant, one thing we can be thankful for is this Enyart brand of Christianity that he, and others, serve up is few and far between and, save a web site, occasional late night broadcast, or obscure publication that may crop up, will forever remain a small minority; the anger in many posts here may well be the result of their knowing this to be true.Praise the Lord! And thanks for the compliment!

Matthew 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.

.Ant

April 2nd, 2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Polycarpadvo

All sin puts you under God's condemnation if you are not repentant and admit to Him that you've done wrong. You need to get a clue here ant. We're not talking about those who used to homosexual and have given their lives over to Christ. As I said earlier, we are talking about those who are blatent homosexuals, proud of it, spit in the face of God and have no remorse.
Well, you're the first person to say so.

But even so, before some kind Christian told us about Jesus, we were all enemies of God (Col 1:21). I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should speak the truth in love. Condemnation can be okay, if it is truly done in love. I don't think the kind of slander Bob indulges in is loving.

jhodgeiii

April 2nd, 2003, 07:36 PM

Very, VERY good response, Knight.

Surely, Christians like Naima, after reading Romans 1, would put the apostle Paul in the same group as you and me, Knight, so we're in good company.

Yes, we were all sinners, but how many of us went around proudly labeling ourselves as such? Surely, if there were people out there proudly calling themselves "adulterers" or "rapists" they would get the same treatment.

Please notice that when Bob speaks about the homosexuals in general, he mocks them. However, whenever he deals with individual, repentant homosexuals, he shows love and mercy. Bob rightfully mocks homosexuals to point them in the direction of repentance, not to make sport of it for his own edification.

4 A.M. Prayer

April 2nd, 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Knight
Praise the Lord! And thanks for the compliment!

Matthew 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.

It was either yourself, or Goose who, in responding to a similar accusation of the Enyart-ites several months ago said something to the effect of 'well, you'll see, we're on the move, and growing'!

You're neither; you couldn't think of a Scripture and verse at that time?

Narrow IS the gate my twentysomething impressionistic youngster, and it may not include myself if I don't get my head and heart on straight (even with the Lord's gift, I still doubt myself) and it also may well not include this Enyart-Fred Phelps-McBirney-post-modern "klanish", right wing hate mindset that you core folks so arrogantly trowel out that may well alienate those folks out there struggling with a committment to Christ.
:cry:
You can still judge righteously without your misguided hate. :up:

.Ant

April 2nd, 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by jhodgeiii
Yes, we were all sinners, but how many of us went around proudly labeling ourselves as such? Surely, if there were people out there proudly calling themselves "adulterers" or "rapists" they would get the same treatment.
Good point. :up:

Originally posted by jhodgeiii
Please notice that when Bob speaks about the homosexuals in general, he mocks them. However, whenever he deals with individual, repentant homosexuals, he shows love and mercy. Bob rightfully mocks homosexuals to point them in the direction of repentance, not to make sport of it for his own edification.
That makes me feel better. One could be mistaken for feeling that he his making sport, though.

Knight

April 2nd, 2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by 4 A.M. Prayer

It was either yourself, or Goose who, in responding to a similar accusation of the Enyart-ites several months ago said something to the effect of 'well, you'll see, we're on the move, and growing'!

You're neither; you couldn't think of a Scripture and verse at that time?

Narrow IS the gate my twentysomething impressionistic youngster, and it may not include myself if I don't get my head and heart on straight (even with the Lord's gift, I still doubt myself) and it also may well not include this Enyart-Fred Phelps-McBirney-post-modern "klanish", right wing hate mindset that you core folks so arrogantly trowel out that may well alienate those folks out there struggling with a committment to Christ.
:cry:
You can still judge righteously without your misguided hate. :up: I think your missing the point.

The point is....

When you present the truth - especially God's truth -, you will NOT be liked by the majority. Plain and simple!

Ask yourself... how did the apostles fair? Were they liked? Did they end up rich and well connected in the mainstream (of the day)?

NEXT...
What does the following verse mean to you?1Timothy 5:20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

billwald

April 2nd, 2003, 08:28 PM

"Homophobic" is an example of do-gooders ruining and perverting a perfectly good and understandable - can't think of the word means d-dad attached to the end of a word. "-phobic" means "fear of" Do-gooders have perverted "fear of" into "distaste for." In a sense, it could be said that Christians fear homosexual activity in the same way they fear other sins.

.Ant

April 2nd, 2003, 08:38 PM

The Collins English Dictionary defines "homophobia" as
intense fear or hatred of homosexuals or homosexuality
I think most heterosexuals would fear homosexuality. But calling yourself a homophobic is dangerous, because many people will assume you mean you fear and/or hate homosexuals.

Jefferson

April 2nd, 2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by .Ant
I think most heterosexuals would fear homosexuality. But calling yourself a homophobic is dangerous, because many people will assume you mean you fear and/or hate homosexuals. We do hate them because they are a blight on society. But we love them enough to tell them the vile truth about themselves so that they will ask God for forgiveness. This, of course, usually cause social ostracizm for us because our views on homosexuality are so politically incorrect. But we care more about saving the souls of homosexuals than we do our own comfort zones. Do you care about homosexuals that much?

JanowJ

April 3rd, 2003, 07:30 PM

Have we forgotten the verse:
Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18
Sexual sins are worse than others (our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit), perhaps only murder and blasphmey are worse. And in sexual matters, Homosexuality is worse than fornication (Romans 1), although all sexual sin is an abomination. (Stealing, although a sin, is never called an abomination). Homosexuals are disgusting perverts. If you don't believe it from Scripture, just take a moment to think about it medically of physically (just make sure you haven't eaten recently.)

.Ant

April 3rd, 2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by JanowJ
Homosexuals are disgusting perverts. If you don't believe it from Scripture, just take a moment to think about it medically of physically (just make sure you haven't eaten recently.)
You're right. They are. But we are all guilty of perversion. The only difference is that, as a follower of Jesus, I have been forgiven, whereas unbelievers are not.

Originally posted by Jefferson
We do hate them because they are a blight on society. But we love them enough to tell them the vile truth about themselves so that they will ask God for forgiveness. This, of course, usually cause social ostracizm for us because our views on homosexuality are so politically incorrect. But we care more about saving the souls of homosexuals than we do our own comfort zones. Do you care about homosexuals that much?
It sounds like you're saying that, overall, you hate them, but you love as much as you have to for their conversion.

I love homosexuals. I'm not afraid to associate with them. As you say, part of love is speaking the truth, so I will (sensitively and in good time) say what God thinks of their homosexuality. I hate and fear homosexuality, it is disgusting, but I do not fear and/or hate them.

Jefferson

April 3rd, 2003, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by .Ant
I hate and fear homosexuality, it is disgusting, but I do not fear and/or hate them.

2 Chronicles 19:2 - "Should you help the ungodly and love those who hate Jehovah? And by this bring wrath on you from before Jehovah."
Psalm 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in Your sight. You hate all doers of iniquity.
Psalm 5:6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.
Psalm 11:5 Jehovah tries the righteous; but His soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.
Psalm 139:21,22 O Jehovah, do I not hate those who hate You? And am I not grieved with those who rise up against You? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies.
Ecclesiastes 3:8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
Ezekiel 23:28 For so says the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will give you into the hand of those whom you hate, into the hand of whom your soul was alienated from them.
Hosea 9:15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal, for there I hated them. I will drive them out of My house for the wickedness of their doings. I will love them no more; all their rulers are revolters.
Zechariah 11:8 I also cut off three shepherds in one month. And My soul loathed them, and their soul also detested Me.
Leviticus 20:23 And you shall not walk in the ways of the nation which I cast out before you. For they committed all these things, and therefore I loathed them.
Proverbs 16-19 These six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among the brethren. (Notice the progression in this passage is from head to feet. He begins with the eyes (the proud look), then proceeds to the tongue, then to the hands, then to the heart, and then finally to the feet. In other words, God hates the sinner from head to feet. Again notice that God does not hate false witnessing, rather He hates the "false witness" himself. And notice that God does not hates discord, he hates the "one" who sows that discord.)

Knight

April 3rd, 2003, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by .Ant

I love homosexuals. I'm not afraid to associate with them. As you say, part of love is speaking the truth, so I will (sensitively and in good time) say what God thinks of their homosexuality. I hate and fear homosexuality, it is disgusting, but I do not fear and/or hate them. In good time?

What if its too late?

What if by your waiting for a "good time" your friend ends up going to hell?

True hate is when you are apathetic to your neighbors sin. 'You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. - Leviticus 19:17God says....Open rebuke is better Than love carefully concealed. - Proverbs 27:5

.Ant

April 4th, 2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Jefferson
2 Chronicles 19:2 - "Should you help the ungodly and love those who hate Jehovah? And by this bring wrath on you from before Jehovah."
...
Psalm 139:21,22 O Jehovah, do I not hate those who hate You? And am I not grieved with those who rise up against You? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies.
...
etc..

Erm...
Jesus - "You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

Also, Jefferson, see the verse from Leviticus Knight posted.

You're absolutely right, Knight. It's better to speak out that wait too long. I do have a tendency to do that. You have to balance, because speaking too early can be just as bad as waiting too long. And Proverbs 27:5 weighs on my heart.

Knight

April 4th, 2003, 12:09 AM

.Ant, I hope your getting the point. (I must admit.... it doesn't look like it)

Apathy isn't love.

Love, (true love) might look like harsh rebuke.

Love, never looks like apathy.

If we are to "abhor evil" which literally means "hate evil" I don't think that would mean showing approval through apathy of your neighbors sin.

.Ant

April 4th, 2003, 12:14 AM

Knight, when I said "you're absolutely right", that's what I meant. As in I agree with everything you said. I would've thought my last post (among others) made it clear that I believe in speaking the truth in love, which can sound harsh.

And of course I don't believe in being apathetic in any way.

Knight

April 4th, 2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by .Ant
Knight, when I said "you're absolutely right", that's what I meant. As in I agree with everything you said. I would've thought my last post (among others) made it clear that I believe in speaking the truth in love, which can sound harsh.

And of course I don't believe in being apathetic in any way. OK, great!:thumb:

.Ant

April 4th, 2003, 12:27 AM

Knight

April 4th, 2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by .Ant
:) Oh I can beat that!!!

Watch me get happy....
:mad: :cry: :confused: :( :rolleyes: :p :) :o :D

.Ant

April 4th, 2003, 01:59 AM

Pardon me, but some of those smilies didn't look very happy! :p

Lord Vader

April 5th, 2003, 01:45 PM

Because to someone who is hetero, the very idea of two guys being warm for each others form is severely weird, traumatizing, even. The fact that some people could be born with their biology turned around such that they are genuinely attracted to the same gender is too much to take for someone like Bob (it's weird for me but facts are facts and reality is reality, however strange). A world where that can happen is just unacceptable to his way of thinking. He has a strong need to believe that the world doesn't really work that way, that nature wouldn't, couldn't just produce that kind of thing though no fault of the person being born that way. So he, and those with his kind of personality, latch on to the idea, the hope, that no one is ever born that way, that somehow they just go astray.

Think about that. Think about how you as a hetero could never ever ever think of the same gender the same way you think about da womahn. Could you, even through abuse, ever be capable of being comfortable, even in a dissociated sense, gettin' busy with another fellow. Yeeeesh. I doubt a hetero could just go astray because they were "rebelious". As much as Bob knows how gross it is he should realize that much; but it is his psychology that drives him to hang onto this explanation that people sin; they aren't born that way.

The so called Dr.Laura has dealth with this problem by refining her anti-homo stance. She accepts that they're born that way but that this is still not a reason to practice it just as some people are born with a sexual attraction only for children, yet they still shouldn't act on it realizing that it is wrong.

Bob can't accept a world where homos are produced by nature and I can't believe that someone as het. as I am could ever even pretend to be anything else, even with a gun to the head (someone else might because people are deathly afraid of death; hence religion, but I figure life is a temporal thing anyway in the sense that we know it, why should I compromise my values because someone has a gun to my head?).

Knight

April 5th, 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by .Ant
Pardon me, but some of those smilies didn't look very happy! :p Look more closley....

If you read the smilies from left to right (we all should move to the right) you will see they go from sad to happy.

Zakath

April 5th, 2003, 03:01 PM

Boo!

That was really bad, Knight! :D

Jefferson

April 5th, 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Lord Vader
The so called Dr.Laura has dealth with this problem by refining her anti-homo stance. She accepts that they're born that way but that this is still not a reason to practice it just as some people are born with a sexual attraction only for children, yet they still shouldn't act on it realizing that it is wrong.
I've considered this possibility as well. The Bible says we are all born with a sin nature. But that does not mean we are all born with the same sin proclivities. You can observe this with children. A mother is pushing a shopping cart down an aisle and she's got a little 2 year old "kleptomaniac" in the seat trying to steal something every time mommy isn't looking. Another mother also has a 2 year old in the shopping cart seat who couldn't care less about stealing anything.

I'm not convinced about this "proclivity" view but it's something I'm looking into.

But whatever the truth is, Dr. Laura is right. Just because a person is born with a proclivity towards kleptomania does not mean that it should be legal for that person to steal.

Jeff

P.S. Welcome to T.O.L. Lord Vader

.Ant

April 5th, 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson
I'm not convinced about this "proclivity" view but it's something I'm looking into.
Proclivity is obviously true - we are all born with different personalities and tendencies. We all have strengths and weaknesses, but we can't blame them for doing something wrong.

Hi Lord Vader!

Homos are not produced by nature - a baby is not born homosexual. It may have an increased risk of becoming homosexual, due to genetics, but it won't grow up to become a homosexual, without a bunch of sin in the picture (sin done to the person, and sinful reactions by the person).

Lord Vader

April 7th, 2003, 03:24 PM

Someone can be attracted to the same gender and not be a homo? Not following that too well...

.Ant

April 7th, 2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Lord Vader
Someone can be attracted to the same gender and not be a homo?
Of course. It is possible to feel like killing someone without being a murderer.

Even if you are attracted to the same gender, the real sin is when you start actually thinking about sexual activities with them. Kindof like how you can look at girl without being guilty of adultery ("whoever looks at a woman lustfully...")

Zakath

April 7th, 2003, 09:44 PM

What's that old saw about the difference between letting the birds fly about one's head and letting them nest in one's beard???

Lord Vader

April 8th, 2003, 03:01 PM

BTW, is there anything more gay than that little, "go Bob"! thing in Bob Enyarts radio theme tune? I crack up when I hear that!

.Ant

April 21st, 2003, 05:14 PM

Originally said by God, in Jude 22-23
Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear--hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

.Ant

May 8th, 2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Lord Vader
BTW, is there anything more gay than that little, "go Bob"! thing in Bob Enyarts radio theme tune? I crack up when I hear that!
It's very poncy isn't it?

Candide1202

May 11th, 2003, 02:16 PM

Has anyone touched on Eva the EVIL Lesbian?

Just wondering...

Jefferson

May 11th, 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Candide1202
Has anyone touched on Eva the EVIL Lesbian? Not with a 10 foot pole. :chuckle:

Candide1202

May 11th, 2003, 02:33 PM

and i am sure that is a good thing, eh?

:nod:

Poly

May 11th, 2003, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson
Not with a 10 foot pole. :chuckle: :crackup:
Yeah, just the name makes me want to run and hide! :Popup:

Candide1202

May 11th, 2003, 11:08 PM

I actually think that it is a good interview!

:thumb:

PS: this is the COOLEST ICON -> :box:

aikido7

May 15th, 2003, 04:51 PM

Jesus preached the coming of the Kingdom of God in everyday images that his first-century listeners could understand, but if he taught everything (and Matthew's account tells us that he taught everything in parables), then we have a problem.

As any careful reader of the gospel knows, the parables are NOT dogmatic, rational theology but puzzling stories that are calculated to upset our conventional wisdom. Unlike a proverb which distills a familiar human truth (look at the wisdom tradition in Proverbs), a parable is a story which turns the agreed-upon truth on its head. Theologians and pastors have also tried to "domesticate" the bite of Jesus' parables by turning them into allegory but that goes only so far (the wheat represents the church, the woman represents the flock, etc.).

The Kingdom of God is compared to a measure of flour contaminated by a woman who hid the corruption of leaven until the measure became unmanageable. The tiny mustard seed becomes a weed with dangerous take-over properties which lampoons the traditional image of mighty Israel. None of these conclusions would be possible without the knowledge that, one, elsewhere in the Old Testament and in Paul, "leaven" is clearly shown to be corruption and two, the mustard plant was a lowly weed that--when left unchecked--could ruin a Mediterranean farmer's crop and attract birds who would eat his good seed. The mustard seed parable is also an echo of the Old Testament reference to Israel as the "mighty cedar" which protects the Jewish nation and attracts birds of the air to nest in its branches.

Clearly Jesus was saying something else about God.

And what of the Parable of the Good Samaritan? As any Jew well knew, the Samaritans were the marginalized "untouchable" Jews--seen as the bastard, illegitimate heirs of God's favor. No one at that time could imagine a Samaraitan being "good" any more than they could imagine "loving one's enemies."

Jesus was then, and people could not get the message.

Jesus is still here, and people still don't get it.

How would Bob Enyart react to Jesus' story of the Parable of the Good Queer?

Zakath

May 15th, 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by aikido7
How would Bob Enyart react to Jesus' story of the Parable of the Good Queer?

Interesting question. I wonder... :think:

Jefferson

May 15th, 2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by aikido7
How would Bob Enyart react to Jesus' story of the Parable of the Good Queer? Apples and oranges. Samaritans were born that way. Queers choose to be queers. Hence, "good queer" is an oxymoron.

aikido7

May 15th, 2003, 06:20 PM

Ah--some may choose their "gayness"--others are stuck with it. The Samaritans "chose" their way of worship and the site of thier temple rites.

One thing about fundamentalist thought is that it cannot tolerate ambiguities--everything has to be in black and white. And the chaos has to be somehow "controlled." The chaos of sex has ALWAYS been a big control issue in religion. But that's not the only thing that's feared. Jesus was so feared by some he was killed. And today's Christianity? Thus we have the allegoric and dogmatic overlay on Jesus' renegade, radical parabolic vision.

Remember, "oxymoron" is one "rational" way to "approach" a parable. I don't think the rational mind is meant to be invited to the Kingdom...

Apples and oranges are part of a larger class of nomenclature called "food." This is [b]WAY[\b] beyond the "either / or" thinking of "apples or oranges" or even "fruit." It's all food, gay or straight, Pharisee or Roman centurion, leper or loser. There's a party going on and the host is instructed to go out to the streets and invite everyone over.

Love God and your neighbor--that's Jesus in a nutshell, Jeffy.

Knight

May 15th, 2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by aikido7
Love God and your neighbor--that's Jesus in a nutshell, Jeffy. Good point... but love should not be hypocritical...

Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. - Romans 12:9

In other words.... it is hateful to not rebuke your neighbors sin.

'You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. - Leviticus 19:17

aikido7

May 15th, 2003, 07:57 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Knight
Good point... but love should not be hypocritical...

Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. - Romans 12:9

---------------------------------------------

Love isn't love if it is hypocritical. Love is patient, kind, does not boast, etc. It's a love from God, open to anyone. And it's open for all of us to pass that love on.

Good point--"abhor what is evil." In this case, the evil comes from ignorance on the social level and the biblical level. Bob Enyart and others like him are really doing the best they can with the information and beliefs that they have. They truly do not know any other way. They have "an exclusive relationship with Jesus" (the modern term) but they haven't realized that Jesus demands them to be inclusive. Ironic, isn't it?

"In other words.... it is hateful to not rebuke your neighbors sin."
This sounds like pretzel logic to me. The "in other words" show that the original words weren't good enough. The same thing happened to Jesus' words as time went on.

Cling to what is good, whether gay or straight.

Knight

May 15th, 2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by aikido7
Love isn't love if it is hypocritical. Love is patient, kind, does not boast, etc. It's a love from God, open to anyone. And it's open for all of us to pass that love on.Open to anyone???

Really??

How far do you take your own train of thought? Do you love pedophiles, rapists, murderers? And if so... how do you demonstrate that love? Curious minds want to know.

You continue...Good point--"abhor what is evil." In this case, the evil comes from ignorance on the social level and the biblical level. Bob Enyart and others like him are really doing the best they can with the information and beliefs that they have. They truly do not know any other way. They have "an exclusive relationship with Jesus" (the modern term) but they haven't realized that Jesus demands them to be inclusive. Ironic, isn't it?How "inclusive" do you assert that Jesus wants us to be? Again... should our love and acceptance include pedophiles, rapists and murderers? Or were you simply using "inclusive" in regard to homosexuals? If you were... how to you determine just what Jesus wanted us to be "inclusive" about?

aikido7

May 15th, 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Knight:]
Open to anyone???

Really??

How far do you take your own train of thought? Do you love pedophiles, rapists, murderers? And if so... how do you demonstrate that love? Curious minds want to know.

It ain't easy. Who said it was? Did Jesus say it was going to be easy to follow him? I know Paul talked about how hard it was for himself to do the right thing...

You continue...How "inclusive" do you assert that Jesus wants us to be?

ALL inclusive.

Again... should our love and acceptance include pedophiles, rapists and murderers?

That's our dilemma, isn't it? The power of "forgiveness" is different in quality from "love" and "acceptance." The last two come later, if at all, after the hard work of the first word is finished.

Or were you simply using "inclusive" in regard to homosexuals? If you were... how to you determine just what Jesus wanted us to be "inclusive" about?

Searching for his authentic voice in the Bible is one way. Prayer--not to impose my agenda, but to find God's. Jesus helped people meet their needs. In ancient Palestine, as now, people get addicted to ineffective strategies for meeting those underlying needs. Rape is an ineffective strategy for tenderness, pedophilia is an ineffective strategy for something normal and human (I don't think we know exactly what right now) and homosexuality is just part of nature. There are a lot of books now for curious minds about homosexuality's evidence and prevalence in the animal world--including "transgendered bears"--believe it or not! Acts of murder or agression are usually masking underlying fear--this includes both civil life and wartime, but only the latter form is "forgiven."

There were a lot of relatives of 9/11 victims who forgave the attackers and stood up publicly against the war on Afghanistan but those few voices were muted in the swell of patriotic us vs. them feelings. Imagine how difficult it must be to forgive on a scale like that!

So-called "curious minds" sometimes would rather NOT know. Most of us (speaking for myself) are usually superficial and aren't interested in what the underlying intention of a particular action is--especially if that person is a social outcast or an enemy. But everyone has good intentions. Osama bin Laden, Hitler or our spouses. We just have to make the effort to look behind and underneath their troublesome behavior and find the good, underlying intention. When you find that, then you can understand, have empathy and perhaps teach them how to satisfy that good intention using a better action.

"God makes his sun to shine both on the evil and the good and sends his rain on the just and the unjust."

aikido7

May 15th, 2003, 08:55 PM

The content is different, but the process is the same. It looks like the old "holiness code" of the Old Testament being flaunted by Jesus. In a society (and religion) infused with "purity" issues and laws, some things "don't belong" with other things. There were strict rules about behavior which Jesus walked around breaking.

Socially, he tipped over the tables in the temple (so to speak) by traveling with, touching and hanging out with the unclean and marginalized of his day. Definitely "risky behavior." He also seems to have loved parties and celebrations.

Today's homophobic sensibilities come from the same mindset: certain things "belong together" in this culture, and some things "obviously" do not.

Homosexuals? Eeeww! Don't go there!

Most don't....

One Eyed Jack

May 15th, 2003, 09:08 PM

Why do some people refer to Judea as 'ancient Palestine?'

aikido7

May 15th, 2003, 10:31 PM

They might be stupid, unthinking, or gay.
(Or they just might be heterosexual and enjoy dressing up in a nurses' uniform and talking bawdy or chewing gum that's already been chewed by midgets)

Candide1202

May 15th, 2003, 11:47 PM

...midgets? bad visuals---

.Ant

May 16th, 2003, 01:39 AM

I have only one problem with "The Parable of the Good Queer": A Samaritan might be a righteous worshipper of God, and still be called a Samaritan. Whereas a queer is necessarily perverse.

Originally posted by aikido7
"In other words.... it is hateful to not rebuke your neighbors sin."
This sounds like pretzel logic to me. The "in other words" show that the original words weren't good enough. The same thing happened to Jesus' words as time went on.

Knight's words were perfectly logical, and didn't add any meaning whatsoever. "Open rebuke is better than hidden love." It is less loving to not rebuke - not rebuking shows that you don't care.

Originally posted by Knight
Again... should our love and acceptance include pedophiles, rapists and murderers?
Yes, it certainly should.

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Were it not for God's love and acceptance towards us when we were still sinners - perverse, murdering and adulterating, we would still be dead, slaves to sin.

aikido7

May 16th, 2003, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by .Ant
I have only one problem with "The Parable of the Good Queer": A Samaritan might be a righteous worshipper of God, and still be called a Samaritan. Whereas a queer is necessarily perverse.

Knight's words were perfectly logical, and didn't add any meaning whatsoever. "Open rebuke is better than hidden love." It is less loving to not rebuke - not rebuking shows that you don't care.

Yes, it certainly should.

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Were it not for God's love and acceptance towards us when we were still sinners - perverse, murdering and adulterating, we would still be dead, slaves to sin.

"Not rebuking shows you don't CARE????"

It is an interesting idea that "Open rebuke is better than hidden love" and other sayings get bandied about as something from the Bible and thus must be taken seriously by Christians. I am just surprised to hear that from you, I guess. With some of the postings I see here, perhaps the faith can truly be changed. We will finally find a Jesus we can make in our own image. How about:

"Hate your enemies"

"Turn the other cheek...NOT!"

"God wants you to be RICH!"

"Kill those who offend you!"

"Zygotes are people, too!"

"The poor?? To HELL with the poor!"

If we say it, write it and post it often enough, maybe people will begin to believe it.

A parable, by its very nature, is not logical. It is not rational. It is not dogmatic. It is not propositional or linear. It is a parable. This linguistic form is the authentic test of Jesus' distinctive speech and teaching which has survived in the New Testament. Studying the gospels carefully--as Thomas Jefferson did and using his own words here-- it is easy to seperate the "diamonds" from the "dung heap."

NOTHING Jesus says indicates that homosexuality is "necessarily perverse." Not even the OT holiness code says THAT!

And Paul himself apparently saw no value in pointing out what Jesus said and did. Aside from a proscription on divorce and perhaps a few other allusions, Paul says nothing about Jesus earthly life (He does mention he was "born of a woman"). Paul was concerned with communicating the meaning of Jesus death to him. Much of his work was to spread the word of his vision, taken from a mix of his auditory experiences on the way to Damascus and his attempt at settling disputes among members of the new movement. Clearly, Paul's ideas weren't normative for the faith, but the emperor put a squelch on all other forms three centuries later.

These other forms are closer to what Jesus actually taught, rather than what others taught about him.

And you have to remember that Paul was a terrible writer. Important insights, but poor Greek. Don't get too attatched to his specific phrasing. He tended to get lost in his own words.

Samaritans were seen as "perverse" worshippers of God. But please don't take my word for this. Investigate what you read and hear on your own. For more on this, see any detailed history of first-century Jewish politics and religion. My point still is, Jesus was using the word as a stand-in for the enemy, the feared, the other, the tribal outsider.

Fill in the blank: "the Parable of the Good_________" The short aphorism about the speck in one's brother's eye and the plank of wood in our own is also relevant here. Through the years we have deadened our minds to the orignial shock value of Jesus' parables. But no longer can we see the Samaritan parable as simply the happy story of "how to be a good neighbor." Thanks to increasing appreciation of Jesus' teachings by bible scholars, the story becomes a profound look at how God's help sometimes comes from unexpected places and in unexpected times--part of Jesus' vision of the Kingdom of God.

.Ant

May 16th, 2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by aikido7
"Not rebuking shows you don't CARE????"

It is an interesting idea that "Open rebuke is better than hidden love" and other sayings get bandied about as something from the Bible and thus must be taken seriously by Christians. I am just surprised to hear that from you, I guess.

Erm...

Better is open rebuke
than hidden love.

Proverbs 27:5

I thought Christians were supposed to take the *whole* Bible seriously, not just "pick 'n' mix" the bits they choose.

Originally posted by aikido7
NOTHING Jesus says indicates that homosexuality is "necessarily perverse." Not even the OT holiness code says THAT!

No, they just executed the innocent homosexuals for no reason...

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by aikido7
And you have to remember that Paul was a terrible writer. Important insights, but poor Greek. Don't get too attatched to his specific phrasing. He tended to get lost in his own words.

It's not "specific phrasing" we're talking about here. It's the very essence of his message:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

.Ant

June 1st, 2003, 12:15 AM

The topic of this discussion has completely changed, so the thread should be moved.

Jefferson

June 2nd, 2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by .Ant
The topic of this discussion has completely changed, so the thread should be moved. Good point .Ant. I moved this discussion here: http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7598

.Ant

June 3rd, 2003, 12:58 AM

Any response to my other points, aikido?

aikido7

June 3rd, 2003, 07:51 AM

No--you are essentially correct. Much of the Holiness Code and some of Paul's writings are concerned with same-sex behavior proscriptions.

karstkid

June 7th, 2003, 02:03 AM

After observing this forum I have come to several conclusions. One. This forum is supported by close friends and allies of Bob Enyart. Two. All of his cohorts believe in his book “The Plot” which is nothing more than an attempt to explain the convoluted theology and eschatology of a belief system known as Ultradispensationalism. Bob Enyart is an Ultradispensationalist. Ultradispensationalism has numerous aberrant beliefs. It is not in the mainstream of Evangelical Christianity. Three. Bob’s homophobia is part and parcel of his schizophrenic belief system. Many of the Ultradispensationalist churches have the word “Grace” in their name. But, with the hardness of heart of Bob and his ilk shows toward some, one would hardly believe it. Bob and his cohorts would be quick to quote this verse.

“but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.”” 1 Peter 1:15-16

We should live holy lives. But, as I see it Bob and his comrades need this verse.

“He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” 1 John 4:8

But Bob’s cohorts will quote some verse (probably OT) to counteract the impact and importance of 1 John 4:8.

Now let’s set the record straight. Homosexuality is sin. Adultery is sin. Murder is sin. Rape is sin. Fornication is sin. Lying is sin. Using the Lord’s name in vain is sin. Dishonoring your parents is sin. Lust is sin. Saying to someone “you fool” is a sin. Etc. etc.etc. You probably are getting the picture. A fitting verse is this one.

“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” James 2:10

The following verse also applies to Bob and company’s extreme judgementalism.

“For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.” James 2:13

Jesus had mercy and compassion on the woman caught in adultery. Yet, He said “Go and sin no more.”

With the attitude of Bob and his buddies they may have ignored Jesus and stoned her. That is the attitude he has toward homosexuals.

Jesus truly did love the sinner but hated the sin.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” John 3:16-17

But, Bob and friends might say. “A repentant homosexual could come to Christ. But, the vast majority of them are unrepentant” True enough. But, let’s look at some numbers. The percentages of homosexuals in the USA are 1% to 1.5%. Out of 287 million Americans that’s only 2.8 million or so homosexuals. That leaves over 284 million non-homosexual Americans. Out of 284 million non-homosexual Americans there are many scores of millions that would be defiant to God and unrepentant. Yet, you make it as though the homosexuals are the only ones that are unrepentant and defiant. The truth is that the more one get into sin, any sin, the more that sin has a grip on us. Therefore sin will make us more defiant and unrepentant to God.

Ted Turner is not homosexual. Yet, he is unrepentant and hates Christianity. In the 5th century AD St. Patrick tried to evangelize the Irish chief who enslaved him. Before the chieftain threw himself in the fire he said that ‘I’d rather die a pagan than a Christian.’ His sin was devotion to the occult.

One other thing, condemnation of homosexuals will not bring them to the Lord. Yes they need to hear a message of repentance but more than anything they really need to hear the Gospel message of hope and the love of Jesus. Most people I know became Christians when they heard about the love of God than the wrath of God. St. John says “We love because He first loved us.”

Finally, I certainly hope that Bob is not tangled up with that horrible group known for their motto “God hates fags”. If he is, then I pray that Bob’s whole ministry closes down. That group from some Baptist church in Topeka Kansas is so evil in what they do and say I can truly say that it is not from God but from the Devil.

.Ant

June 7th, 2003, 02:28 AM

What is ultradispensationalism?

Jefferson

June 7th, 2003, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by .Ant
What is ultradispensationalism? See: http://biblicalanswers.com/book_12dispensations.htm

Jefferson

June 7th, 2003, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by karstkid
Ultradispensationalism has numerous aberrant beliefs.Such as?

It is not in the mainstream of Evangelical Christianity.And that's a bad thing?

Bob’s homophobia is part and parcel of his schizophrenic belief system.In what way is Bob's belief system "schizophrenic?"

We should live holy lives. But, as I see it Bob and his comrades need this verse.

“He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” 1 John 4:8

But Bob’s cohorts will quote some verse (probably OT) to counteract the impact and importance of 1 John 4:8.Wrong: "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil . . ." - (Romans 12:9) Yet another New Testament verse on why good Christians are supposed to be judgmental.

Jesus truly did love the sinner but hated the sin.Will God send only people's sins to Hell or will He send people themselves to Hell?

The truth is that the more one get into sin, any sin, the more that sin has a grip on us. Therefore sin will make us more defiant and unrepentant to God.Does this include the sin of worshipping the false god of Public Acceptance and Political Correctness?

One other thing, condemnation of homosexuals will not bring them to the Lord. Yes they need to hear a message of repentance but more than anything they really need to hear the Gospel message of hope and the love of Jesus.I disagree. The Gospel message is useless to a person who feels he is not a sinner. Christ Himself said, " The ones who are whole do not need a physician, but the ones who are sick" (Mat. 9:12). Most homosexuals do not believe they are "sick." We need to convince them that they are sick.

St. John says “We love because He first loved us.”Exactly, and Luke 7:47 says, "But to whom little is forgiven, he loves little." If a person is going to have a great amount of biblical love, that person must first realize the huge amount that he has been forgiven.

Finally, I certainly hope that Bob is not tangled up with that horrible group known for their motto “God hates fags”. If he is, then I pray that Bob’s whole ministry closes down. That group from some Baptist church in Topeka Kansas is so evil in what they do and say I can truly say that it is not from God but from the Devil. But God does hate fags.

aikido7

June 7th, 2003, 07:06 PM

Jesus speaks of a loving father, even to the wicked.

He speaks of God as "unclean" in the parable of the leaven.

Jesus was a teacher and storyteller.

Paul was a preacher, letter-writer and theologian.

There is no evidence that Paul knew Jesus other than an auditory experience described in two different ways in both Luke and Acts.

Jesus was obviously labeled as unclean because of his associations with lepers, whores and other outcasts of his day.

Many people saw God in his words and actions.

.Ant

June 7th, 2003, 07:16 PM

Wrong thread, aikido...

Originally posted by Jefferson
But God does hate fags.
But God also hates liars, hypocrites, the lazy, and the lukewarm.

Jefferson

June 7th, 2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by .Ant
But God also hates liars, hypocrites, the lazy, and the lukewarm. But God didn't tell governments to execute liars, hypocrites, the lazy or the lukewarm.

.Ant

June 7th, 2003, 09:23 PM

I don't think it makes much difference, especially under the new covenant, where even thinking of adultery is adultery.

Jefferson

June 7th, 2003, 11:30 PM

.Ant:

Why did God tell governments to execute people who commit homosexual acts but not to execute liars, hypocrites, the lazy or the lukewarm?

.Ant

June 7th, 2003, 11:34 PM

Probably because it is easy to say whether someone is homosexual (they commit a homosexual acts), but how do you say whether someone is a liar, or a hypocrite, or lazy, or lukewarm?

karstkid

June 8th, 2003, 01:30 AM

A response to Jefferson.

quote:

Originally posted by karstkid
Ultradispensationalism has numerous aberrant beliefs.

Such as?

No practice of water baptism which is aberrant and cultic. Two. Only Paul’s epistles apply to us today. Three. One does not have to obey what Jesus said because it applies only to Jews.
quote:

It is not in the mainstream of Evangelical Christianity.

And that's a bad thing?

OK I will correct that. It is not in the mainstream of real Christianity period.

quote:

Bob’s homophobia is part and parcel of his schizophrenic belief system.

In what way is Bob's belief system "schizophrenic?"

His Ultradispensationalism.
quote:

We should live holy lives. But, as I see it Bob and his comrades need this verse.

“He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” 1 John 4:8

But Bob’s cohorts will quote some verse (probably OT) to counteract the impact and importance of 1 John 4:8.

Wrong: "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil . . ." - (Romans 12:9) Yet another New Testament verse on why good Christians are supposed to be judgmental.

Yes we are to abhor what is evil. At the same time we need to “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.” At the same time we are to “be at peace with all men” that includes homosexuals. Finally, “do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” All Paul’s words.

quote:

Jesus truly did love the sinner but hated the sin.

Will God send only people's sins to Hell or will He send people themselves to Hell?

I presume you did not understand what I said.
quote:

The truth is that the more one get into sin, any sin, the more that sin has a grip on us. Therefore sin will make us more defiant and unrepentant to God.

Does this include the sin of worshipping the false god of Public Acceptance and Political Correctness?

You sure do miss my point.

quote:

One other thing, condemnation of homosexuals will not bring them to the Lord. Yes they need to hear a message of repentance but more than anything they really need to hear the Gospel message of hope and the love of Jesus.

I disagree. The Gospel message is useless to a person who feels he is not a sinner. Christ Himself said, " The ones who are whole do not need a physician, but the ones who are sick" (Mat. 9:12). Most homosexuals do not believe they are "sick." We need to convince them that they are sick.

Did you always think you were a sinner before you came to repentance and faith in Jesus? I do know of a few who came to Christ through hell fire and damnation preaching because they admitted that they were extremely hard hearted. But, the vast majority of believers came to Christ in response to the love and compassion of the person sharing the Gospel with them. God’s Love and Holiness go together.

quote:

St. John says “We love because He first loved us.”

Exactly, and Luke 7:47 says, "But to whom little is forgiven, he loves little." If a person is going to have a great amount of biblical love, that person must first realize the huge amount that he has been forgiven.

No contest there.

quote:

Finally, I certainly hope that Bob is not tangled up with that horrible group known for their motto “God hates fags”. If he is, then I pray that Bob’s whole ministry closes down. That group from some Baptist church in Topeka Kansas is so evil in what they do and say I can truly say that it is not from God but from the Devil.

But God does hate fags.

Then why did Jesus die on the Cross. To follow your logic then God hated you before you come to know Him. You need to read John 3:16 slowly and carefully again. Your theology is at best totally illogical, at worst evil.

aikido7

June 8th, 2003, 11:35 AM

"Wrong thread, aikido..."

PRIDE goeth before a FALL

Jefferson

June 8th, 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by .Ant
Probably because it is easy to say whether someone is homosexual (they commit a homosexual acts), but how do you say whether someone is a liar, or a hypocrite, or lazy, or lukewarm? Easy. There are court cases all the time concerning auto theft for example and defendants and witnesses for the defense are proven to be lying. It's called perjury. The biblical punishment for perjury (in this case) is not the death penalty.

People are also proven to be hypocrites all the time. A politician publicly advocates honesty and integrity in office yet is caught improperly channeling state funds into his private business. Again, the biblical punishment for this is not the death penalty.

Insurance companies prove people are lazy all the time. Many people falsly claim to have work related accidents and collect insurance payments for years until the insurance company secretly films them doing work in their yards involving heavy lifting. The insurance payments are immediately cancelled. Again, the biblical punishment for laziness is not the death penalty.

But God did tell governments to give the death penalty to people convicted of homosexual acts. Why?

.Ant

June 8th, 2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson
But God did tell governments to give the death penalty to people convicted of homosexual acts. Why?
Okay, you're right :cool:

I think Romans 1 hints at the answer:

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

But sin is sin, and whether it's perverse sexual acts or perverse words (ie. lying), it all deserves the death penalty. "The wages of sin is death".

Jefferson

June 9th, 2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by .Ant
But sin is sin, and whether it's perverse sexual acts or perverse words (ie. lying), it all deserves the death penalty. "The wages of sin is death". But not all sins deserve the death penalty from people. In other words, we are to treat some sinners (ex. fags) differently than we treat other sinners.

.Ant

June 9th, 2003, 12:46 AM

Maybe. But if you're going to treat people differently like that, you'd better be consistent about it - eg. disobedient / rebellious children also got the death penalty in the old covenant.

karstkid

June 9th, 2003, 02:18 AM

Jefferson said:
“But God did tell governments to give the death penalty to people convicted of homosexual acts.”

That statement is false. God told ONLY ANCIENT ISRAEL to give the death penalty to people convicted of homosexual acts. Ancient Israel ended approximately 132 AD. Modern day Israel began in 1948.

“1Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2“You shall also say to the sons of Israel,” Lev. 20:1

God allowed Israel to use the death penalty for many other sins besides homosexuality. Observe the following verses from Leviticus chapter 20.

‘Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

9‘If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.

10‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

11‘If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

12‘If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

13‘If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

14‘If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst.

15‘If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal.

16‘If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

27‘Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.’”

Along with homosexuality being condemned to the death penalty there was adultery, bestiality, human sacrifice, incest, and occult involvement as well. I do not hear you preaching the death penalty for these sinful practices. The silence is deafening.

Now regarding governments enacting the death penalty for homosexuality: Greece, Rome, Russia, France, England, and the USA are not theocracies like ancient Israel was. They never were and never will be. To be sure, there were Christians living in those countries but God never directed other countries like he directed Israel. None of them were ever “Christian” nations even though they may have had many Christians living there. The Papal States and the Holy Roman Empire were a joke. They were never a substitute for Israel. They were hardly “Christian” in themselves. Even hypothetically if a country was 100 percent born again bible believing Christians, it is still not Israel. God NEVER told governments, save that of ancient Israel, to give the death penalty to people convicted of homosexual acts. So, you cannot apply something that was given to ancient Israel to modern day United States. We are not even an extension of Israel. What does hold true is the principle of heinous sin that is described in Leviticus 20. Even you Ultradispensationalists who believe that Paul is all there is to the Bible should know that Paul, a Jew, never advocated killing of homosexuals. He is the same Paul who said regarding enemies “Bless and curse not.” So, why don’t you?

aikido7

June 9th, 2003, 05:45 AM

Jefferson should be allowed to "pick and choose" which part of Scripture is binding for him and which part is not.

One thing we must realize is that he is doing the best he can with the knowledge, information and beliefs he has. Most of us are not biblical scholars or theologians. We don't have the time to study ancient languages and customs and we often rely on others (who may not even know themselves) with an attitude of obedience.

Everytime a preacher preaches or a teacher instructs others in Sunday school, an idea is stressed and Scripture is used to buttress that idea. Parts which do not are left out. The Bible is a collection of theologies as well as a collection of books. That is why the Old Testament (as Christians call it) is seen differently after Jesus came. That is why the New Testament is seen differently by 130,000 Protestant groups. It is also why the Catholic church can contain everyone from a Pope John Paul to Thomas Merton. It is also why Hitler and Mother Teresa could claim authority from the same book.

It is a bit silly to insist we as individuals or we as a certain group have the definitive view of the Bible.

This arrogance has happened all through the centuries since the texts were translated. As more and more people learn history that is not affected by theology--and have the intellect to keep them seperate--this narrow view will eventually dissipate.

History does inform faith. When we get our history right, faith will evolve.

Jefferson

June 10th, 2003, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by karstkid
Yes we are to abhor what is evil. At the same time we need to “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.” At the same time we are to “be at peace with all men” that includes homosexuals. Finally, “do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” All Paul’s words.
Paul's definition of blessing those who persecute you, living at peace with all men and overcoming evil with good includes the advocacy of the death penalty (Acts 25:11; Romans 13:4).

. . . the vast majority of believers came to Christ in response to the love and compassion of the person sharing the Gospel with them.
Compassion for what? Sin? How unloving and judgmental of you to imply to someone that they are a sinner.

Then why did Jesus die on the Cross. To follow your logic then God hated you before you come to know Him. You need to read John 3:16 slowly and carefully again. Your theology is at best totally illogical, at worst evil. I and God both love fags enough to convince them that their vile acts will testify against them on the day of judgment unless they humble themselves and receive God's forgiveness. Do you love them that much?

.Ant

June 10th, 2003, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Jefferson
Paul's definition of blessing those who persecute you, living at peace with all men and overcoming evil with good includes the advocacy of the death penalty (Acts 25:11; Romans 13:4).
I don't think Paul advocates the death penalty.

Romans 13:4
For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
This is about the authority of government to punish wrongdoing. It doesn't specifically mention the death penalty.

Acts 25:11
"If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!"

As Paul says later, all sin deserves death.

This verse does not endorse the death penalty. Paul is under Roman law, and is willing to accept the legal punishment. Just because I murder someone in a country where the penality for murder is death, and I accept my punishment, doesn't mean I endorse the death penalty as a whole.

karstkid

June 10th, 2003, 01:43 AM

A RESPONSE TO JEFFERSON

quote:
Paul's definition of blessing those who persecute you, living at peace with all men and overcoming evil with good includes the advocacy of the death penalty (Acts 25:11; Romans 13:4).

In Acts 25:11 Paul is appearing before a Roman tribunal. Do you think the pagan Romans had laws to execute homosexuals? LOL, they virtually promoted it. Just don’t throw verses out there; look at the context.

quote:
Compassion for what? Sin? How unloving and judgmental of you to imply to someone that they are a sinner.

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” Matt. 11:28-30

34“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’ Matt. 25:34-40

And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written,
18 “THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME,
BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR.
HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES,
AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND,
TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED,
19 TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.”
20And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”
Luke 4:17-21

If that is not love and compassion for the lost, then you tell me what is?

quote:
I and God both love fags enough to convince them that their vile acts will testify against them on the day of judgment unless they humble themselves and receive God's forgiveness. Do you love them that much?

If you feel that the Lord is leading you to bring the Gospel to homosexuals so the Holy Spirit can convict them of sin, righteousness, and judgment, then go for it. Are you going to gay bars so you can preach the Good News to them? Are you visiting gay churches in order to bring them the true Gospel? Are you going to places where gays hang out, like Cheeseman Park in Denver to convince them that their vile acts will testify against them? Are you willing to move to a gay neighborhood so you can preach to your homosexual neighbors? Actions speak louder than words.

Jefferson

June 10th, 2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by .Ant
Maybe. But if you're going to treat people differently like that, you'd better be consistent about it - eg. disobedient / rebellious children also got the death penalty in the old covenant. Not really. 3 things:

First - The verse commanding the stoning of rebellious children falls under the category of symbolic laws that symbolized the theocratic covenant relationship between Israel and God. It is not to be applied to today's nontheocratic governments (which is all of them).

Second - the rebellious "children" in question were adult children as Deuteronomy 21:20 shows - "And they shall say to the elders of his city, this son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey our voice. He is a glutton and a drunkard." I don't know too many drunkards who are 5 years old.

Finally, there is a strong principle in the Bible for victims rights. The victim of a crime is the one who decides whether the allowed penalty will be enforce or not. The death penalty for cursing one's parents would not be automatic.

When the State is the prosecuting agent of case laws where a pleonasm is in the verse (eg. "dying he shall surely die"), it would enforce the death penalty upon conviction with no judicial discretion in imposing sanctions.

However, when the victim is the prosecuting agent, victims rights prevail. For example, the Bible commands the death penalty for adultery. However, an innocent husband in a particular case may decide that his preschool children need their mother (slut though she may be) much more than he needs justice. The father's decision to allow the slut to live would stand.

A specific example from the Bible is Joseph's refusal to prosecute Mary when he found out she was pregnant before they were married. The Bible calls Joseph a righteous man. Why? Didn't Joseph violate Biblical law by not prosecuting his pregnant betrothed? No. Joseph had the Biblical freedom to forgive Mary. He chose that freedom and sought to divorce Mary quietly.

Jefferson

June 10th, 2003, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by karstkid
God told ONLY ANCIENT ISRAEL to give the death penalty to people convicted of homosexual acts.
Wrong. When Paul writes that children should obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20) do you actually take that fact to imply that only children of Christian parents are under moral obligation to obey their parents? The fact that only Israel was given a special revelation of certain political laws does not mean that only Israel was bound to keep such laws. The Gentiles who were not given the law still have the work of the law written on their hearts (see Romans 2:12-16). In fact Romans 1:31 says that those who commit abominations such as homosexuality know that "those who practice such things are worthy of death."

Please pay close attention to Deuteronomy 4:5-8: "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Jehovah my God commanded me, so that you should do so in the land where you go to possess it. And you shall keep and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
For who is a great nation whose God is coming near to them, as Jehovah our God is, in all our calling on Him? And who is a great nation whose statutes and judgments are so righteous as all this Law which I set before you today?"

That passage shows that Israel's law was supposed to be a model for all the gentile nations around her.

The plan was that all nations would flow into Zion saying, "Come and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem." (Isaiah 2:2,3)

God obviously required the gentile nations to obey his law as Lev 18:24-28 shows: "Do not defile yourselves in any of these things. For in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out before you. And the land is defiled. Therefore I visit its wickedness on it, and the land itself vomits out those who live in it. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, neither the native, nor any stranger that lives among you. For the men of the land who were before you have done all these abominations, and the land is defiled. You shall not do these so that the land may not spew you out also when you defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you."

God allowed Israel to use the death penalty for many other sins besides homosexuality.
Please quote me where I said otherwise. The only reason why I am singling out the death penalty for homosexuality on this thread is because the title of this thread is, "Why is Bob proud of being homophobic?"

God NEVER told governments, save that of ancient Israel, to give the death penalty to people convicted of homosexual acts.See my comments above.

Even you Ultradispensationalists who believe that Paul is all there is to the Bible should know that Paul, a Jew, never advocated killing of homosexuals.Wanna bet? In First Timothy 1:8-10 Paul says, "But we know that the law is good if a man uses it lawfully, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous one, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine"

karstkid

June 10th, 2003, 05:31 PM

Response to Jefferson.

Quote:
That passage shows that Israel's law was supposed to be a model for all the gentile nations around her.

You are idealistic for something that never really happened in history. Israel may, a few times, have been a model of righteousness to nearby nations, but reality wins out in that other nations did not practiced God's Law. God never spoke directly to those nations for a Law like the Law of Moses. Historically it never happened. If Israel was the chosen people and they wavered like alternating current in regards to obeying God's Law how could you expect a pagan to do so. Again your unrealistic expectations are astounding.

Quote:
Please quote me where I said otherwise. The only reason why I am singling out the death penalty for homosexuality on this thread is because the title of this thread is, "Why is Bob proud of being homophobic?"

That is the impression you gave in you answers. You gave me nothing to think so otherwise.

Quote:
Wanna bet? In First Timothy 1:8-10 Paul says, "But we know that the law is good if a man uses it lawfully, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous one, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine"

I know lots of people who were lawless, disobedient, ungodly, sinners, unholy, profane, fornicators, and liars before they became Christians. Jefferson, weren't you one or several of the conditions above. We all were. If you interpret the verse the way you do, then you would be burning in hell right now if you were executed by the state for lying before you had a chance to come to Christ. The Gospel is not the Law, it is the Good News. Christ died for our sins so we can have eternal life. Now that is good news! Homosexuals have to come to repentance and faith. The Holy Spirit has to woo them like He wooed you and I. We can't play Holy Spirit. If a person (for this thread I say homosexual) is incorrigible then there is very little you can do except pray for their salvation. BTW there are millions, perhaps billions of incorrigible people on this planet and the vast majority are not homosexual. Besides why waste time on those that do not want to hear the Gospel. Time is better spent on those ready for harvesting instead of the scoffers.

Jefferson

June 10th, 2003, 10:54 PM

.Ant, regarding Romans 13:4 you wrote:

This is about the authority of government to punish wrongdoing. It doesn't specifically mention the death penalty.What do you think the governing authorities used the "sword" in verse 14 for? Tickling?

Regarding Acts 25:11 you wrote:
As Paul says later, all sin deserves death.All sin deserves death by the law of sin and death that God imposes. That is quite different from the delegated authority of capital punishment that God gave to human governments. That method of death does not apply to all sinners, but only to those sinners who have commited capital crimes as outlined in the Bible.

This verse does not endorse the death penalty. Paul is under Roman law, and is willing to accept the legal punishment. Just because I murder someone in a country where the penality for murder is death, and I accept my punishment, doesn't mean I endorse the death penalty as a whole.Paul did not say, "If I am guilty of doing anything that your law says is deserving of death . . ." Rather he said, "If I am guilty of doing anything deserving of death . . ." If Paul agreed that he committed a captital crime that IS deserving of death, not only in Paul's eyes but in God's eyes as well, then Paul did "not refuse to die."

Jefferson

June 10th, 2003, 11:19 PM

karstkid, you wrote:

In Acts 25:11 Paul is appearing before a Roman tribunal. Do you think the pagan Romans had laws to execute homosexuals? LOL, they virtually promoted it. Just don’t throw verses out there; look at the context.The point of quoting Acts 25:11 is to show that Paul is an advocate of the death penalty. No one is saying Paul advocated the Roman definition of what constitutes a capital crime.

Regarding Mat. 11:28-30; 25:34-40; and Luke 4:17-21, you wrote:
If that is not love and compassion for the lost, then you tell me what is?Where are homosexual perverts mentioned in those verses? You are comparing apples with oranges.

quote:

If you feel that the Lord is leading you to bring the Gospel to homosexuals so the Holy Spirit can convict them of sin, righteousness, and judgment, then go for it. Are you going to gay bars so you can preach the Good News to them? Are you visiting gay churches in order to bring them the true Gospel? Are you going to places where gays hang out, like Cheeseman Park in Denver to convince them that their vile acts will testify against them? Are you willing to move to a gay neighborhood so you can preach to your homosexual neighbors?I'll answer your question just as soon as you answer my question which you have so far avoided: "I and God both love fags enough to convince them that their vile acts will testify against them on the day of judgment unless they humble themselves and receive God's forgiveness. Do you love them that much?

Jefferson

June 10th, 2003, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by karstkid
You are idealistic for something that never really happened in history. Israel may, a few times, have been a model of righteousness to nearby nations, but reality wins out in that other nations did not practiced God's Law. God never spoke directly to those nations for a Law like the Law of Moses. Historically it never happened. If Israel was the chosen people and they wavered like alternating current in regards to obeying God's Law how could you expect a pagan to do so. Again your unrealistic expectations are astounding.The point of that passage is that it is God's WILL for the Gentile nations to obey God's moral law. Whether those nations actually do obey Him in history is beside the point.

I know lots of people who were lawless, disobedient, ungodly, sinners, unholy, profane, fornicators, and liars before they became Christians. Jefferson, weren't you one or several of the conditions above. We all were. If you interpret the verse the way you do, then you would be burning in hell right now if you were executed by the state for lying before you had a chance to come to Christ.Please quote me which Old Testament verse commands the death penalty for lying.

The Gospel is not the Law, it is the Good News.The Law is indespensable to the Gospel:

Galatians 3:24 - "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

Romans 3:19 - "But we know that whatever things the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law; so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may be under judgment before God"

Romans 3:20 - " for through the Law is the knowledge of sin."

Romans 7:7 - "I did not know sin except through the law."

Psalm 19:7 - "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul"

Homosexuals have to come to repentance and faith. The Holy Spirit has to woo them like He wooed you and I. We can't play Holy Spirit.Therefore, should we get in the Holy Spirit's way by communicating to homosexuals that they are no more vile than the average person who fudges a little on his taxes?

Besides why waste time on those that do not want to hear the Gospel. Time is better spent on those ready for harvesting instead of the scoffers.Not all homosexuals are scoffers. Some repent and become born again Christians.

karstkid

June 11th, 2003, 12:27 AM

Response to Jefferson:

Yes, I would feed them and at the same time rebuke their sin if necessary and encourage them to come to Jesus.

Since you are SO fixated on homosexuals, you do need to answer my question to you.

"If you feel that the Lord is leading you to bring the Gospel to homosexuals so the Holy Spirit can convict them of sin, righteousness, and judgment, then go for it. Are you going to gay bars so you can preach the Good News to them? Are you visiting gay churches in order to bring them the true Gospel? Are you going to places where gays hang out, like Cheeseman Park in Denver to convince them that their vile acts will testify against them? Are you willing to move to a gay neighborhood so you can preach to your homosexual neighbors?"

If you do not answer it, do I get to call you a hypocrite?

Jefferson

June 11th, 2003, 06:03 AM

karstkid:

To answer your question: No, I am not willing to fellowship with homosexuals in order to witness to them. I'll witness to them at work and in public debates and situations like that but I am not going out to lunch with one of them. They are too vile to associate with.

aikido7

June 11th, 2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Jefferson
karstkid:

To answer your question: No, I am not willing to fellowship with homosexuals in order to witness to them. I'll witness to them at work and in public debates and situations like that but I am not going out to lunch with one of them. They are too vile to associate with.

Surely not as vile as tax collectors, whores or pus-faced lepers!

karstkid

June 11th, 2003, 12:42 PM

Response to Jefferson:

So, you're telling me that you will not practice what you preach. You'll throw darts at them from a safe distance, but you will not associate or even eat with them as Jesus did to the people who were considered vile in his day. So you are just talk and no action. Then you truly are a hypocrite. Also, your seething hatred against them is not from God. That much hatred has only one source, the pit of hell.

Jefferson

June 11th, 2003, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by aikido7
Surely not as vile as tax collectors, whores or pus-faced lepers! I have to admit, tax collectors run a very close second. :cool:

Jefferson

June 11th, 2003, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by karstkid
Response to Jefferson:

So, you're telling me that you will not practice what you preach. You'll throw darts at them from a safe distance, but you will not associate or even eat with them as Jesus did to the people who were considered vile in his day. So you are just talk and no action. Then you truly are a hypocrite. Also, your seething hatred against them is not from God. That much hatred has only one source, the pit of hell. My, my. Such melodramatics. There is no reference in the Bible that Jesus ever associated with homosexuals. I'm following His example.

Jefferson

June 11th, 2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by karstkid
Response to Jefferson:

Yes, I would feed them and at the same time rebuke their sin if necessary and encourage them to come to Jesus."If necessary?" How would it not be necessary to rebuke them for their homosexual acts?

karstkid

June 12th, 2003, 02:58 AM

Response to Jefferson:

Quote:
My, my. Such melodramatics. There is no reference in the Bible that Jesus ever associated with homosexuals. I'm following His example.

LOL You show melodramatics in your extreme hatred of homosexuals. Are you a skin head or a member of the Nazi party or the KKK? They are the type that would show that much hatred toward homosexuals.

Jesus loves homosexuals like all other sinners. You show me in the Gospels how Jesus hated homosexuals.

karstkid

June 12th, 2003, 03:18 AM

Response to Jefferson:

Quote:
"If necessary?" How would it not be necessary to rebuke them for their homosexual acts?

Duh! There are harden homosexuals like there are hardened heterosexuals. There are/were homosexuals that are/were very open to the love of God with little or no rebuke necessary. The Love of Christ has the power to change lives. That Love you seem to know little about. When it comes down to the Love of God you are a bull in a china closet.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." Gal. 5:22-23

Well, what about it? Where's your's?

Jefferson

June 12th, 2003, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by karstkid
Response to Jefferson:

Are you a skin head or a member of the Nazi party or the KKK? Ad hominem.

Jefferson

June 12th, 2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by karstkid
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." Gal. 5:22-23

Well, what about it? Where's your's? Biblical love (as opposed to cowardly love that worships the false god of Public Acceptance) is found in Romans 12:9 - "Don't let your love be with hypocrisy, hate evil."

Jefferson

June 12th, 2003, 03:32 AM

Does God hate sinners? Should we follow His example?

2 Chronicles 19:2 - "Should you help the ungodly and love those who hate Jehovah? And by this bring wrath on you from before Jehovah."

Psalm 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in Your sight. You hate all doers of iniquity.

Psalm 5:6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Psalm 11:5 Jehovah tries the righteous; but His soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.

Psalm 139:21,22 O Jehovah, do I not hate those who hate You? And am I not grieved with those who rise up against You? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies.

Ecclesiastes 3:8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Ezekiel 23:28 For so says the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will give you into the hand of those whom you hate, into the hand of whom your soul was alienated from them.

Hosea 9:15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal, for there I hated them. I will drive them out of My house for the wickedness of their doings. I will love them no more; all their rulers are revolters.

Zechariah 11:8 I also cut off three shepherds in one month. And My soul loathed them, and their soul also detested Me.

Leviticus 20:23 And you shall not walk in the ways of the nation which I cast out before you. For they committed all these things, and therefore I loathed them.

Proverbs 16-19 These six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among the brethren. (Notice the progression in this passage is from head to feet. He begins with the eyes (the proud look), then proceeds to the tongue, then to the hands, then to the heart, and then finally to the feet. In other words, God hates the sinner from head to feet. Again notice that God does not hate false witnessing, rather He hates the "false witness" himself. And notice that God does not just hate discord, he hates the "one" who sows that discord.)

aikido7

June 12th, 2003, 11:52 AM

Karskid, I see by the Theology Online format you have been designated as a "trainee," having made just a few posts. Your outrage and frustration are understandable, but many "moderators" and other posters here will continue to stand up and witness for their interpretation of the Bible. They gather up the pearls from Scripture and thread them together wily-nilly to justify their weltanschauung--which, upon investigation, is secular rather than theological. Once they have strung their pearls, they parade as the "religious" have always done, relishing their decorations and enviously comparing them with those of their neighbor.

Opinion posing as righteousness is a potent force. Many of the postings on this board will show examples of this posing.

Just keep standing up for and with Jesus. Learn all you can about Him, positive and negative. Read progressive theologians, conservative scholars and other Christian writers. Study Jewish and Islamic writings as well, for they all claim common patronage from Abraham. And lastly, try to experience his example and spirit in your own heart.

_______________________________

Jefferson, why have many on these boards have no intention of observing a single other statute in Leviticus but get so focused on 18:22? Why do they seem to ignore all the rest and call it biblical scholarship? What makes them quick to quote Paul and ignore Jesus' open embrace of all?

They talk about protecting the unity of the church, as if disunity were someone else's fault. They demonize others in order to turn a tide they happen to resent.

Christians aren't of one mind about many things, and certainly not about human partnerships. Even though Jesus said virtually nothing about such matters, many believers torment themselves searching for right opinion, and then turn and torment other people in trying to enforce right opinion.

As a "moderator" I think you have a responsibility to moderate. This does not mean you must jettison your interpretations or opinions of God's word, as long as you are honest about acknowledging them as your human views. Just try and leave the "enforcing" to the politically-correct police!

AROTO

June 12th, 2003, 02:46 PM

And what about not-so-blatent sin? Sin that isn't obvious, that most others don't see? Such sin puts you under God's condemnation as much as homosexuality.
***********************************************

It seems that you are trying to say that all sins are equal in how bad they are. Isn't it much worse to rape and kill someone, compared to steeling a candy bar? We need to rebuke with force in love. If my son was to kill someone, what should his punishment be? Death. If he stole a candy bar, it we be more appropriate for a strong spanking! Homosexuality is a very distructive lifestyle and the public at large needs to re-stigmatize that behavior!

aikido7

June 12th, 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by AROTO
... Homosexuality is a very distructive lifestyle and the public at large needs to re-stigmatize that behavior!

The sin, it seems to me, would be profligacy and hypocrisy--a sin equally destructive in both homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles.

Jesus certainly had a lot to say about hypocrisy.

aikido7

June 12th, 2003, 04:38 PM

Gays and faggots are bad, gays and faggots are good.

The importance of metaphor has long been pointed out, but a good explanation rarely gets studied. Lakoff's piece here (linked below) is useful for all those who wonder why the other guy--in the other religion, in the other church, or even the other guy sitting next to us in the pew--just "doesn't get it."

Metaphor is important. When someone says "I don't believe in America anymore," they are not referring to the land mass between Canada and Mexico. Mixing up the concrete with the metaphorical can lead to misunderstanding at best, and acts of war at worst.

I would be interested in any comments to the link.

http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html

AROTO

June 12th, 2003, 07:16 PM

The sin, it seems to me, would be profligacy and hypocrisy--a sin equally destructive in both homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles.
**************************************************

By all means hypocrisy is wrong and sinful, and we are all sinners period. I by no means am saying that heterosexuals don't sin. Sex is not just for a "man" and a "woman" It is for a husband and wife to become one. God spells out in the bible that homsexsuality is wrong and punishable by death. America is now just like so many other nations, fallen flat on its face. Fact is, if more people took a stand for what is right and Godly, crime would be down, homosexuals would be criminals again, abortion would be considered what it is, Murder!!!

aikido7

June 12th, 2003, 08:37 PM

Again, as I asked Jefferson, "why have many on these boards have no intention of observing a single other statute in Leviticus but get so focused on 18:22? Why do they seem to ignore all the rest and call it biblical scholarship? What makes them quick to quote Paul and ignore Jesus' open embrace of all?"

Love your neighbor AS yourself. He either said it or he didn't.

.Ant

June 13th, 2003, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by Jefferson
.Ant, regarding Romans 13:4 you wrote:
This is about the authority of government to punish wrongdoing. It doesn't specifically mention the death penalty.
What do you think the governing authorities used the "sword" in verse 14 for? Tickling?
Well, yes. ;)

Doesn't the sword refer to punishment in general, not only the death penalty?

Originally posted by Jefferson
This verse does not endorse the death penalty. Paul is under Roman law, and is willing to accept the legal punishment. Just because I murder someone in a country where the penality for murder is death, and I accept my punishment, doesn't mean I endorse the death penalty as a whole.
Paul did not say, "If I am guilty of doing anything that your law says is deserving of death . . ." Rather he said, "If I am guilty of doing anything deserving of death . . ." If Paul agreed that he committed a captital crime that IS deserving of death, not only in Paul's eyes but in God's eyes as well, then Paul did "not refuse to die."
So? I'll readily admit homosexuality deserves death. As does lying.

You didn't really respond to the point you quoted above. I don't have a problem with the death penalty as such, but I do have a problem with the combination of the death penalty and our legal system.

aikido7

June 13th, 2003, 07:28 AM

Paul also demanded obedience to government, but that apparently didn't stop American colonists from breaking away to form a disobedient nation. But they called it "God's country," of course....

Jefferson

June 13th, 2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by aikido7
Jefferson, why have many on these boards have no intention of observing a single other statute in Leviticus but get so focused on 18:22?I'll talk about any verse in Leviticus you want. Lev. 18:22 is discussed in this thread because the subject of this thread is about "homophobia" (so-called). Why would you expect us to be discussing the very next verse (on bestiality) in a thread like this? By the way, do you think God was unloving for commanding the death penalty for homosexual acts in Lev. 18:22?

Why do they seem to ignore all the rest and call it biblical scholarship?I don't. The entire Bible needs to be understood from a birds-eye view in order to make sense of the details. You've got to see the entire Biblical forest first in order to make sense of individual doctrinal trees.

What makes them quick to quote Paul and ignore Jesus' open embrace of all?"Jesus' open embrace of all?" (Here comes aikido7's blind date with Jesus):

Many people were "offended" by Jesus (Mat. 11:2-19).

Mat 10:14 - "And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet."

Mat 15:12,14 - "Then His disciples came and said to Him, Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard th