...who hasn't read the Sermon on the Mount in quite a while. Nor Roman's for that matter.
On the topic of same-sex unions:
I think that there are genuine differences of opinion in this area.
I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage.
But I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them.
I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in the hospital or transfer property to each other.
I don't think that it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.
If people find that controversial, then I would refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think, you know, is in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.
That's my view.
He goes on to speak about abortion... But as to the above statement:
Firstly, we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves. That includes homosexuals.
Secondly, there are laws already on the books that protect homosexuals from discrimination. The objections many evangelicals have in regard to "gay rights" is the creation of a protected class based solely on sexual preference. That and the fact that such recognition puts the God-preferred model of marriage on equal par with what God clearly calls abomination.
Thirdly, we are commanded in Romans 13:1-2 to obey the laws and leaders placed over us, reinforcing the above point...
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Also...
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
--Matthew 22:21
Thus far, believe it or not, I was on the same page with Obama. That is, until he uttered this ridiculous statement:
If people find that controversial, then I would refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think, you know, is in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.
In reality, Romans 1 is far more clear in terms of homosexuality, than the Sermon on the Mount, but to be fair, a look at the Sermon on the Mount is in order.
...
Well. Sorry. Nothing even remotely referencing homosexuality. Lot's of love your neighbor kind of stuff, but I already pointed that out. But here's an interesting passage:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
--Matthew 5:17-20
So Leviticus still stands, for the unsaved in particular. What about this statement:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
--Matthew 7:21-23
That's a frightening prospect, no? To believe you served the Lord all your life, followed the Ten Commandments, prayed and all, only to hear... "Depart from me..."
If the Holy Spirit was given in part to guide us in all truth, where then has Obama gone wrong? What spirit is he listening to? Can America afford such a man in the White House?
Again, just to be fair, Jesus DID tell us to love our neighbors, and not to hate our brother without cause. And speaking to that, their sin is not cause enough to hate them. Not according to the book I'm reading.
But a funny thing happened while reading the Sermon on the Mount... no mention whatsoever, obscure or otherwise, of homosexuality. The Sermon on the Mount does not mention this sin that the Law... fulfilled in Jesus... condemns. That sin is paid for ONLY if the homosexual repents and turns away from said sin.
My response to the homosexual is to be one of demonstrable love, i.e., acceptance as a creation of God, but not as a homosexual. This demonstrable love must include the presentation of the Gospel-- Ezekiel 33:8 speaks quite clearly to this.
So my problem isn't with Obama's desire to be accepting and loving toward same-sex couples. No. But I DO have a very serious problem with his characterization of Romans 1:24-27 as being "obscure." It is anything but.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Recompense of their error? AIDS perhaps? HIV? Herpes? The physical destruction of their personal health? To say nothing of the destruction of their souls! But God still desires they receive His son for the remission of their sin.
What about Jude 1:7-8?
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Good Grief! can it be any plainer? Apparently not to senator Barack Obama.
45 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If people find that controversial, then I would refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think, you know, is in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.
Well, thanks. Yet another reason to support the man!
Sooo..., Leviticus still stands? Stone disrespectful children? Kidnap the enemy's virgins and make them your wife? All those crazy (and some not-so-crazy) rules for a people 5000 years ago still stand? Really?
:-)
"I insist on sticking to the actual words of the Bible and not some human's interpretation?"
Yes! I was!
Yeah, I can see how crazy that is. When it's something you believe in you "stick" to it, but if it's "crazy"... well!
Run along, Dan. Go back to picking and choosing what is and is not worthy of consideration. Everyone knows you know better than God.
My focus on Obama in particular is because of how dangerous he is. I would rather Hillary sit in the big chair than Obama. Really.
McCain is spoiled as the best possible Republican candidate because of his bone-headed association with, and sponsorship of Liberal legislation-- to say nothing of liberals themselves.
I don't care one iota about the color of Obama's skin, but I do care about the content of his character-- what's in his heart. And for my money, anyone who opposed a ban on partial birth abortion WHO ALSO voted against the Born Alive Victims Protection Act.... well, the first is at best misguided, but the second? How monstrous the heart of any man who can find no compassion for a child born alive in spite of attempts to kill it in utero so as to demand all attempts be made to preserve that life! That is hardly the mark of a Christian heart. That is hardly the mark of a man who genuinely believes in hope. Especially when you consider the African-American community is most adversely affected by the insane practice of abortion.
I will continue to question his Christian credentials as long as he continues to support positions that are antithetical to the Christian faith he professes.
If you're tired of my supposed BS, then leave. You've offered nothing here but disdain for my position, and not a shred of reasoned logical defense for Obama, OR his positions.
Dan, you missed the point behind the statement, which was: ANYONE not covered by the blood of Jesus WILL be judged by the Law.
It's as simple as that.
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
Also...
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
--Matthew 22:21"
In this country, WE ARE CAESER, in that we work to change laws we don't like.
Re, "a look at the Sermon on the Mount is in order. ... Well. Sorry. Nothing even remotely referencing homosexuality."
That's the point. The Sermon on the Mount is more important to Obama's faith, and my own, than an obscure passage in Romans.
Re, "--Matthew 7:21-23 ... Lord, Lord."
Do you really think that applies to people who are wrong? Then there can be no basis for your own faith. Because all of us are wrong about much. No. It seems to apply for fakers. If you think Obama is faking, OK.
Re, "If the Holy Spirit was given in part to guide us in all truth, where then has Obama gone wrong? What spirit is he listening to? Can America afford such a man in the White House?"
He goes as far with openness as you do with your judging others? And maybe your both wrong? That's my take on it, but I will always err on the side of Grace -- and grace. What spirit? Obama is listening to the Spirit of Christ, same as you. With each of you, as with me, experience filters what we hear and what we choose and what we ignore. Can we afford him in the WH? Obviously, I think he will be a good antidote for the ills of the present White House.
:-)
There. I didn't spit, call you a name or anything. We disagree. Surprise!
I assure you ER, Christ would never tell ANYONE to vote against partial birth abortion, or to vote against saving the lives of those who survive an abortion.
Grace!? Where's the grace in slaughtering innocent children?
What grace in barbarism?
Ergo, the man is both scripturally and theologically challenged.
No, it is not. But no one said anything about ignoring anything -- but a rockribbed faux interpretation of any part of Scripture that is not enlightened by Grace.
Re, "I assure you ER, Christ would never tell ANYONE to vote against partial birth abortion, or to vote against saving the lives of those who survive an abortion."
Hmmm. One, you said what you measnt to say backwards. WHich is funny in a way -- not funny ha ha -- in that I know you meant, " Christ would never tell anyone to vote FOR partial bith abortion." It's funny -- but not funny ha ha -- because I am confident that Obama has never voted FOR any form of abortion. Now, he may have voted against "saving the lives of those who have survived abortion -- but that is the very CRUX of the matter: Are they lives that anyone but the bearer of the "life" has any right to "save"?
He would tell you no, you don't. And I would, too.
Re, "Grace!? Where's the grace in slaughtering innocent children?"
I absolutely oppose the slaughter of childrem, innocent or otherwise. Adults, too, innocent or otherwise. You convince me that a not-yet-viable fetus is a living child worth saving, and that any adult human being deserves to be murdered by the state, and I'll attempt to answer the question.
But really: You stop caling abortion "murder" and I'll stop calling capital punishment murder. We have to do that -- and here I'm talking about the universal "we" -- before we can even begin to hear one another!
Abortion, wrong. I'm with you!
I am NOT with you on how to stop it! And neither is Obama. And I'm with him.
"Christ would never tell anyone to vote against BANNING partial birth abortion"
The Born Alive Victims Protection Act specifically targeted those children that could survive outside the womb. Many children are born premature, and such children are fought for tooth and nail. The same consideration should be given to the infant survivors of abortion. But Obama voted against the Act. Shame on Obama.
I never claimed otherwise.
By all mean, use the Sermon on the Mount as part of your views. You know, the one where Jesus' marriage illustration involved one man and one woman, just like the rest of the Bible. And don't forget the part where He warned against false prophets.
I addressed the deceptive and/or ignorant misinterpetations of Leviticus and the OT here: http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/favorite-dish-of-liberal-theologians-skeptics-shellfish/ I expect non-believers to make such silly appeals, but always find it disturbing when Christians do.
Re. your Keys post which didn't allow comments - here's a link with research on the gay thing - http://narth.com/ . Of course, some of the contributors may be religious, so it will be easy for the pro-sodomy crowd to dismiss them. After all, you can only get reliable information on human sexuality from non-Christians, right?
I ask this question often: WHO should decide if homosexuality is inborn or chosen? Those who study it or those who have an opinion based on their interepretation of a religious text?
If you vote for the religious option, do you also vote for that on matters like:
Who should set mortgage rates? Who should perform heart operations? Who should design airplanes?
Do you vote for the person with a religious opinion on each of those or do you prefer someone who's actually studied in the field?
~a fiscally conservative, socially liberal ( and all around nice guy)atheist
Re. who should decide: It is a non-issue with respect to morality. The Bible is crystal clear:
100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
So even if it is inborn (it isn't) then it is still a sin.
Even heretics like Shelby Spong will concede that the Bible says it is a sin. He just does like Dan and ignores the parts he doesn't like.
I can understand your sentiment about all the arguments here. But then if you've been hanging around awhile; reading and not getting involved, it should have become apparent by now that just as atheists and Christians have diametrically opposing positions, so too do many "christians"... my point being, just because Dan, ER, and others CALL themselves "christian" doesn't necessarily mean I BELIEVE they ARE Christian. I've learned to respect respect them, if not their positions on many things, but that hardly means what you are witnessing here is a gaggle of Christians "arguing." And for the record I love interacting with Dan and ER... I just drink their brand of Kool-Aid.
Dan and ER may very well BE Christian; I can't say definitively... only God knows the score... but neither am I willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as it were. Both of them hold views that are inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible. Neils most recent comment illustrates that point abundantly. They cling to ideas that are clearly unsupportable, and often extrabiblical. That being said. I choose to engage them, be as respectful as they allow me to be, and earnestly contend for the faith that was once, and for all, delivered to the saints.
I don't know how much you know about the Bible, Anon, but there is a tiny book sandwiched between The entire first half of the bible and the very last book, "Revelation." That tiny book is called "Jude". To clarify, Jude is not the geographical center of the Bible, it is the second to last book. Why I all but call it the meat between two bread slices is as follows:
Jude is parenthetically placed between everything that comes before it and everything that follows. It's as though God said to His readers....
"I've given you the back-story behind the coming of my Son, I've given you HIS story, I told you all you need to know about following Him and being a Good Christian. I'm even telling you how it's all going to play out in the end, but in the meantime, have you considered my servant Jude? Listen closely to what he has to say. I support Him 100% because I told Him what to tell you... Now that you know all you need to know about living for, and walking with, my Son, it's now time to go into all the world and spread the Gospel, bring in a harvest, AND ALSO, as my servant Jude says, EARNESTLY CONTEND FOR THE FAITH.... because my enemy and yours is out to pervert what I've established, namely, the Church of Jesus Christ, my only begotten Son, the reason you are washed clean of your sin and able to stand boldly before my throne and ask what you will...."
So while it may sound like just a bunch of arguing to you, Anon. For me it what I do, as a Christian... to confront error; wherever I find it, whoever delivers it.
And the reason I do it is because you were watching and listening on the sidelines. If this were a one to one, or two to one PRIVATE debate, I wouldn't bother... there's a verse in Matthew (1st New Testament Book) that speaks about not giving that which is holy unto the dogs... namely, the Gospel. But since this IS a public forum, and I can never know for certain who is and who is not paying attention, I have to both confront error and present the Gospel. It's my duty.
ER, Dan, and myself disagree on a number of issues, but there have been and still are areas in which we whole-heartedly agree. It is my hope that in some fashion God will allow me to convince them of what His word truly says. In the meantime, ER thinks I peddle "fundy-candy," and Dan? Well, he's still somewhat of an enigma to me. ;-)
I don't like the arguing that goes on here, but I can't let error go by unchallenged.
And you are welcome here, Anon. Just please take note of the rules of engagement located directly above the "comment entry form."
Mr Anonymous, hate to disappoint you, but I am what I am. I use my real name, I talk about my real church, you can google my name and find out my Louisville phone # and address, as well as that of my church.
Anyone who wants to is more than welcome to stop by Jeff St in and see that, yes, there are indeed Christians like ER and myself.
No foolin'.
As long as we're not killing or beating one another, it's okay. Ideally, we'll disagree without twisting the others' words, which is what I tend to have problems with, but even that is no doubt a misunderstanding.
Brother Neil, for instance, seems convinced I'm a liar and not a Christian but he's wrong and it's easy enough to verify he's wrong by stopping by my church anytime, or asking my sainted traditionalist Christian parents, also easily located.
Neil is just wrong and convinced he's right and that leads to bad assumptions. A misunderstanding. I'm sure he has not the first evil intention in spreading ill-will about fellow Christians.
It's okay. Misunderstandings happen, arguments may result. As long as we're still talking or at least not killing each other, it's all relatively good.
All of you, dan,er,neil, you, - you only prove that christianity is just another club of people looking for something to help them feel like their life has meaning - you guys can't agree on much of anything - you can't even agree on your book. So how are the rest of us supposed to take you seriously? If somebody wants to prove to me that their way is THE way, they've got to have some kind of tangible, believable base of some kind to work with. So is your book true and to be trusted because it's written by "God", or is it just another self-help book written by men. It can't be both.
*AANG
So. When you suggest that those who view homosexuality as the Bible quite clearly does.... as sin, irrespective of whether or not one is born to it, and then suggest I must likewise decide "who should set mortgage rates? Who should perform heart operations? Who should design airplanes?" based upon what the Bible says as well.... Well let me ask you? How can you compare a sexual preference to the setting of mortgage rates? If you're referring to usury, okay, I think I can see where you're going, but then, not the setting of such rates, nor the performance of heart surgeries, nor the designing of airplanes has ANY real relation to the sexual preference of the rate-setter, the heart surgeon, OR the airplane designer! None but the rate-setter is even mentioned in the Bible, and even at that, nowhere does God suggest that those who practice usury should be put to death.
That is a horrible argument. You brighter than that! Surely you can give me a decent argument! I can smack that one clean out of the ballpark!
As to this: "Do you vote for the person with a religious opinion on each of those or do you prefer someone who's actually studied in the field?"
As evidenced by the testimony of Barack himself, he has decidedly NOT "studied in the field." If he had he'd not have made the ridiculous claim he did, ER's defense notwithstanding! Besides which, ER merely made an excuse for Barack's theological gaff. No where in Barack's statement does he suggest that the Sermon on the Mount speaks toward acceptance of same-sex relationships. He can't just pick and choose what he wants to believe, anymore than you or ER can. Or I can! Homosexuality-- male OR female --is a sin, irrespective of congenital predisposition [which I DON'T buy]. Jesus loved the sinner yes, but He ALWAYS admonished the sinner to sin no more... He loves the homosexual, wants to see them saved. But..............
Anyone who dies without Christ, be they homosexual or "professing" Christian, will see the works they performed in their flesh... to include every act of sin [and yes, that includes every act of homosexuality, as well as a vast multitude of others]... judged by the Law. The same Law God gave Moses on Mt Sinai.
The only people who are judged by grace.... judged solely for their work as a Christian, for REWARD, not salvation... are those who repented and turned away from their sins, accepted the free gift of Jesus Christ; namely, His blood for the remission of their sins... their names written in the Lamb's book of life.
This is what the Bible says. Whether I like it not. Whether you like it or not. Whether ER likes it or not. Whether Anonymous 1 or 2 like it...
Unless a man be born again he CANNOT see the Kingdom of God.
Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world!!!
But He can't take away what we refuse to surrender.
"Researchers, psychologists and those who study human sexuality nearly all agree that it is innate."
As I asked those who claim a consensus among scientists on global warming, will you please link to the survey that has results supporting this statement? From my research, I've found nothing to indicate anything remotely close to proof. These supposed intellectuals might believe there's a physical cause, but they have no proof and there've been no studies that have results duplicated by follow up studies.
But here's the real fun part: if we concede that there is a physical cause of this particular sin of the flesh, then there obviously must be for all the others as well, and as such, they all must be given the same consideration as homosexuality. Even further, if we concede there is a physical cause for this particular behavior, then it is only logical to assume and quite likely so, that there is similar causes for every behavior resulting form equally strong compulsion. In support of this, I offer a documentary of about 10 years ago called "Brain Sex" that claimed the opposite manifestation of the cause of homosexuality is seen in violent criminals. If one behavior is unchangeable or unmanagable, then what is to be done about violent criminal behavior? Lock them up for life at the first indication? Drug them for life at the first indication? Why not drug the homosexuals as well?
That fact is that it is our fallen nature that is the cause of all of mankind's desires, lusts, urges, compulsions, both good and evil. God doesn't address such things whatsoever. He only directs us as to which behaviors are acceptable to Him and which are not. It is up to us to deal with this fact and act accordingly. Christ is there when we stumble (thank God) and the fact that a given desire might be stronger than another, or that my particular desire might be more compelling than yours is for you, is very much besides the point and irrelevant.
So it doesn't matter "who decides if it's inborn or chosen". It only matters that it not be done.
And there are countless references to false teachers, so the fact that they infiltrate the church shows how the Bible is right yet again.
Note that I said "pro-legalized abortion." I know the libs will say they are personally opposed to abortion blah blah blah but they are always against any legal protections of the unborn. So pro-legalize abortion is a perfectly accurate description of their views.
Art, you nailed that one shut.
Neil, that's an interesting moral dilemma for democrats-- to abort or not to abort? What a question! Think about it... it's every mother and father's dream to see their children HAVE children. Get married, have children, extend the family gene-pool to another generation. If one society can abort for reasons of gender, why can't ours abort based on sexual preference? If a test were developed to tell a homosexual from a straight baby, in utero, would that not spark a genocide of sorts?
For conservatives, generally speaking, ALL life is sacred. Naturally, even Conservatives enter abortion clinics, but I'd be willing to bet their numbers are far fewer than Democrats who seek abortion.
In closing, I ask you all to remember:
"Only half the patients who ENTER an abortion clinic, come out alive."
So is your book true and to be trusted because it's written by "God", or is it just another self-help book written by men. It can't be both.
And if you do answer, are you all in agreement? I doubt it. So is your book, that you base your entire belief system on, that you live by, and that you form your worldview from, a book from God? Or just a book from men? And if it's just from men, why bother? How can you tell me your God is real when your book is just another book?
AANG
AANG, let me attempt an answer, which my brethren will disagree with:
I am a Christian. The Bible was not written by God or by "God." It was written by men, inspired by God and "God," in their search for God and "God" by their encounter with Jesus of Nazareth, who we call "Christ" and Christ.
And I, for one, speaking only for myself, based on my own experience, and my own search, and my own love for, and from, God, through Christ, believe that the Bible is to be taken seriously as the primary testimony, such as it is, of those like me who have come before me.
But I trust Christ.
If that's not enough for those who I consider my brothers to consider me, likewise, a brother, that's OK. Because they are not the ones I trust, or rely on, for my faith.
Christianty is not a club. It is NOT a set of beliefs. It is a way of life inspired by the life of Jesus, who we call Christ -- informed for me by my experience of Christ, and for Dan by Dan's, and for EL by EL's, etc.
As such, it cannot be proven or disproven. It just IS.
We all hold the Bible as sacred. I hold it sacred because it includes the main documents of those of like faith who came before. Others hold it sacred because they believe it to be accurate in all things.
No, we are not all in agreement. That is not the point, it has never been the point, and it never will be the point as far as I'm concerned.
Take the label "Christian" away. Take the Church, such as it is, away. Take it all away, but Christ.
Christ is the definition of Christianity, not Christians. Not the Bible -- but the hint of Christ found IN the Bible.
And if I stand and live, or fall and die, I live, or die, a follower of Jesus Christ.
Insert affirmation, or ridicule, here. Because while I do care about you and your relationship with God, I don't pretend to care much.
And I don't give a tinker's dam about what you think about me and my relationship with God through Christ, or my relationship with others and *their* relationship with God through Christ.
Climb on board. Or go away. Whether you do is up to you. But whether you "believe in God" doesn't matter as much as you think it does.
Anon, what ER fails to grasp, and what I feel compelled to point out is that WITHOUT the Bible and its testimony of Christ, there is NO record at all-- certainly no FAITH to follow, let alone 'teachings of Christ.'
ER "respects" the Bible as all men should, but he doesn't hold it sacrosanct as the repository of God's complete revelation to mankind of Himself, His purpose, and what He expects of us. If ER did hold the Bible in so high regard he wouldn't allow his finite human reasoning to discard the portions that "appear" to make no sense to him.
Neil, Art, and myself view the Bible as more than a collection of stories (that may or may not be true). We may not all agree on the details, but we accept that the Bible is the penultimate repository of Godly wisdom and instruction, and that as a whole it is complete and without error-- contextually speaking, there are of course differences in spelling, some confusing numbers and such, but the essentials of the faith are without flaw. I can say that because Jesus, being the physical embodiment of God almighty, declared it so when he said not one dot of the "i" or cross of the "t" would "depart from the law" until everything was fulfilled.
That, to me says that Jesus considered the Old Testament flawless.
In the end, JESUS is the end all be all of Faith. No one gets to heaven without Him... without his sacrifice.
ER and Dan have had issues with that last statement in the past.
"But really: You stop caling abortion "murder" and I'll stop calling capital punishment murder. We have to do that -- and here I'm talking about the universal "we" -- before we can even begin to hear one another!"
One is and one isn't. It isn't a matter of anyone simply deciding to call abortion "murder" for effect. It is murder by definition. It's the killing of one human being by another for personal gain. Capital punishment is what the name implies, punishment for capital offense. The child did nothing wrong, it broke no law, it was invited into existence by the willful actions of at least one of its parents, though in the lion's share of cases, both. The criminal had every opportunity to live a righteous life and instead chose to take someone's life for selfish purposes in direct violation with civil law, for which the punishment is death. Capital punishment is the previously stated penalty for the crime and a means of protecting society from further threats by the convicted.
To equate the two is an extremely lame tactic and ER, it is beneath you. I implore you to man up and 86 this tired unrelated comparison.
This is what the Bible says...Anon, what ER fails to grasp, and what I feel compelled to point out is that WITHOUT the Bible and its testimony of Christ, there is NO record at all-- certainly no FAITH to follow, let alone 'teachings of Christ...In the end, JESUS is the end all be all of Faith. No one gets to heaven without Him... without his sacrifice.'
"It is a way of life inspired by the life of Jesus, who we call Christ -- informed for me by my experience of Christ, and for Dan by Dan's, and for EL by EL's, etc.
...Christ is the definition of Christianity, not Christians. Not the Bible -- but the hint of Christ found IN the Bible.
Climb on board. Or go away. Whether you do is up to you. But whether you "believe in God" doesn't matter as much as you think it does.
Don't you see that you guys are in two different camps? One group says I have to believe the Bible is from God and Jesus is who the Bible says he is, and he is the only "way". The other groups says I can take it or leave it (the bible) and it doesn't even matter if I believe in God.
Muslims do the same thing. Some follow their book and some don't.
If i am going to follow a god, I want him to be more than some men's "feelings" about him. If hes for real, he's not gonna make one guy "feel" this way and another guy "feel" that way. He's gonna lay it out for me and tell me what Im supposed to do.
As I said before, I think dan and er at least are playing church and are no different than i am - at least bent admits his unbeleif. elashely, neil, marshall - you are more likely to convince me than dan and er.
but then i'm not hanging around anymore because theres nothing left to discuss. you all proved my point.
AANG
I have Dan figured out, EL.
He just likes to argue. I'm not sure even he believes his own arguments. He just likes to argue.
You question my faith and what I say, AANG, and yet here I am, my life and real name openly available for perusal. You are "anonymous" and may or may not be who you say you are (which is to say, "anonymous").
Regardless, the reality is that none of us have a perfect lock on all knowledge. I gladly admit that reality.
Myself, I find Jesus' teachings difficult to dispute. We SHOULD love our neighbors, our brothers and sisters, even our enemies. I think logic dictates thus. Else we live in a dog-eat-dog, every individual for themselves sort of world and to me, that IS hell.
I find evidence of God spoken in the complexity of the creation; In the beauty of the grand circle of life; in the decaying leaves on the forest floor and the trees springing up therefrom; in the birds of the air and the flowers of the field; in a cup of cold water shared in compassion; in fighting for justice for the poor and oppressed.
As do the other believers here, no doubt.
We have disagreements in HOW to demonstrate love for enemies and neighbors and in other points, but we agree on the major teachings of Jesus. So, having disagreements with others is nothing but evidence of our humanity and I don't know how one would propose getting around that.
You are free to find God or not in the evidence wherein we find God, Mr (or Miss) Anonymous.
Peace.
One more thought: I had this co-worker who was agnostic-ish and a non-church-goer. She complained to me one day of the way "the Church" treats gay folk, saying that it was downright oppressive and ugly and there was nothing of love in it.
I mentioned to her that not EVERY church felt that homosexuality was innately a sin. That, while loving the Bible, we had a different take on God than the traditional one.
To which she responded, "Well, that's just wrong. Churches should stand for traditional values."
She wasn't really interested in anything so much, it appeared, as denigrating believers. For those who thought God considered all homosexuality a sin, they were too oppressive and unloving.
For those Christians who thought that gay or straight - wholesome sexuality in a committed relationship was a great value to God - she thought they were wrong for not being "traditional."
You just can't please everyone, sometimes.
Me, I'm not trying to please anyone. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing (Mark), I do raise a counter point when I disagree with someone's point. As Mark and Eric and everyone ought to do.
Seems to me.
Ha. There's you a convert, boys. He's lookin' for the same easy-to-understand "God" as y'all think y'all have. He's wantin' sure answers rather than peace to live with life's questions. He wants to "get somewhere" rather than to "get going."
Ripe for the plucking, and categorizing, and filing away. And you let him get away.
No harm, no foul, actually. He ain't lookin' for God. He's lookin' for affirmation -- and those are two vastly different things.
You might've got more answers than you were looking for. There are many "camps" within the Christian experience. But, alas, that another thing the camp I'm in and the camp EL, Neil, et al., disagree on: They think they're in the only one! LOL
No matter what you do, no matter where you look, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself either way, faith will ultimately have to play a part in what you believe regarding the existence of "a god". There is just no other way to look at the issue, because of the supernatural aspects, which cannot be measured in earthly, physical ways. Dan's flowery list of evidences notwithstanding, concrete evidence is hard to come by, if at all. The best one can hope for is circumstancial. But for a good review of such, I recommend Lee Stroebel's "The Case For Christ" and one or two of his follow-ups. Some dismiss his books, but they are a good starting point to understanding what is available in terms of proofs. The scholars and experts he interviews are mostly prolific enough to be able to read more detailed tomes on the subject and their books can be found in the bibliography as well as in the text. Other apologists, such as Peter Kreeft, can help make sense of the issue as well. Avoid those "Jesus Seminar" types with extreme prejudice if you want objectivity. I hope you're earnest in your quest. To this end I offer Proverbs 2:3-5:
"If you scream for insight and call loudly for understanding, if you pursue it like you would money, and search it out as you would hidden treasure, then the Lord will be awesome to you, and you will come into possession of the knowledge of God."
To confuse human assertions of mere earthly fact in the search for Holy Truth is to go off The Simple Path that our Lord showed us.
On an unrelated note, ER. Aren't you a writer of some sort? Isn't spelling and sentence structure important in that line of work? Is it too much Dickel before you blog? Really, dude. Slow down a bit.
But neither do I like typos. The sad truth is, blogger doesn't allow comments to be edited once they're posted. With long comments, it sometimes takes me 30-40 minutes to edit-- spelling, structure, additions, and MORE restructuring --to finish a comment. And I often find that when I finally get it posted, someone else has posted and made the same point I did, OR there is still a mistake in my carefully edited comment.
ER just doesn't like to edit, and neither do I. AND I rarely have difficulty understanding him.
Not slamming you Art. Just commiserating with ER. He catches quite a bit of guff from us for many of the positions to which he espouses. Complaining about his typing just seems silly.