Byron A

Is 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Being a sinner does not mean I cannot point out what the bible dictates is sinful. Should we be silent? No Luke 11:33-36 33 "No one, when he has lit a lamp, puts it in a secret place or under a basket, but on a lampstand, that those who come in may see the light. 34 The lamp of the body is the eye. Therefore, when your eye is good, your whole body also is full of light. But when your eye is bad, your body also is full of darkness. 35 Therefore take heed that the light which is in you is not darkness. 36 If then your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, the whole body will be full of light, as when the bright shining of a lamp gives you light." NKJV If they lust after their own genitalia and like kind they have become self worshiped and inward .... you have become an abomination to design and to common sense! There is simply no continuance in man / man... and whoever cannot understand this-> separation from your Creator is all that remains for you! Love Steven Yes, it represents a drastic shift in understanding from what I believe is the Lord's design. However, let's be careful suggesting that all that remains for those who don't understand this concept is separation from the Lord. I've been debating this very topic in another thread... perfect understanding, scripture, doctrine etc is not required for salvation and we should not judge someone unsaved if they have faith in the Lord. i agree with you that "perfect understanding, scripture, doctrine etc is not required for salvation and we should not judge someone unsaved if they have faith in the Lord." I would even go further and say that perfect obedience is not necessary for salvation. We are saved by grace through faith, not works. I have been condemned enough in this topic simply because my beliefs vary from mainstream. I myself am not gay, do not practice homosexual acts, and am actually engaged to be married to a woman. But because my understanding differs, I am condemned to hell? Whatever happened to "Attack the belief, not the person holding the belief"? Well I am done discussing this. Many of these people have shown the unChristian characteristic of judging people to hell, which is a job that belongs to God ALONE.

Lets look first at context of the Leviticus passages. Lets start with Leviticus 18. From the beginning of the chapter, we see that the things in this chapter are against the practices of Egypt and the practices of Canaan. Since we know from history that neither of the two cultures allowed same sex relationships, we know that its not talking about same sex relationships. Rather, its referring to the ancient fertility rituals of the pagan Egyptians and Pagan Canaanites. The more immediate context of Lev 18:22 is Lev 18:21-31. It begins with "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD." Clearly, the context shows that this prohibition is against cultic practices the worshippers of Molech used in their spring festivities. Leviticus 20 begins with the prohibition against Molech, and afterwards goes into more detail of how he was worshiped. The rituals of Molech worship included sacrificing one's firstborn, incestuous sexual orgies, and same sex orgies. What the Bible is addressing in these passages is the pagan rituals of Molech worship, not monogamous same-sex relationships. Okay bed time! Work was crazy today. Good night everyone and God bless!

Oh Yes His Word is explicit in this matter- Love Steven Steven, I'm glad you brought this scripture up as it makes my point quite nicely. Many commentators consider the surrounding chapters to be a commentary on the ten commandments. Lev 18 is then in reference to Ex 20 v 14 and 17. This is not written as an exhaustive list of "don'ts", but expounding on the 'thou shall not commit adultery' commandment with enough clarity to make it clear that sex belongs between a man and a woman in the confines of marriage. Arguing that the bible doesn't expressly (well it does.... but some like to gloss over that or explain it away...) prohibit homosexuality does not deal with the fact that God's design for marriage is written down and expanded upon with great clarity throughout the entire bible, and homosexuality flies in the face of that. I will also deal with your objection when I get home tonight, God willing that I have time. While I do disagree with the witch you quoted, I also disagree that this is the strongest argument against homosexuality. Its not the weakest one ("God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is the weakest one by far! LOL), it does rank close to it.

Oh Yes His Word is explicit in this matter- Love Steven If you interpret those scriptures from Leviticus in light of other Scriptures that are too be found in the Old Testament, you will find that they are a prohibition of same-sex temple prostitution, and has not one iota to do with gay monogamous relationships. I will post the other scriptures when I get home from work tonight. I don't have the time to get into it right now, as I have to get ready for work and then catch a bus out to work (a 45 minute bus ride. ) Have a good day and may the Lord Jesus Christ bless you!

May I ask what objective criteria you use in order to decide what is allegorical and what is not? I only see three possible cases: - Everything should be taken allegorically - Everything should be taken literally - Something should be taken literally and the rest allegorically. But I do not see how to decide apart from our modern sensitivity or personal, fallible, taste. There is no sign on scriptures that says "the following verse is allegorical". By the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If you apply science to something as basic as the trinity, then you have to apply science to every word you read in the bible. Can't have it both ways.. Faith convinced me. What you are saying is that one has to read the bible, apply science and then believe. The true facts are one believes through faith, is saved through faith, and reads the bible true faith. Nothing else but faith is required. As soon as we start looking for more, we are going down a path we should not... I agree that nothing but faith is required. However, when two alternatives have Scriptures to back them up (such as Trinitarian vs Unitarian), how do you pick which position to accept? As an Anglican/Episcopalian, I believe that we have three sources of truth that work together to help us find the truth. Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. The Scientific Method is simply an extension of Reason. God bless you! I have to disagree. I believe we only need Scripture to give us the truth. The problem we find is that people read scripture differently. Problem with tradition is that it is a human construct. Hence it is flawed from the outset. Same goes for reason. Reason is mostly based on latter experience, and that experience is usually based on a singular past (our own). Who is to say that past was righteous, or that we learned anything from it, because those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. So scripture is the only truth, and what all believers should have is a good grasp of hermeneutics. I think it is the first thing we should learn before mining the bible for truth, otherwise our tools are blunt and our lamps dim, if you get my drift. The New Testament clearly teaches us that the apostles gave us traditions. 2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2. By tradition I don't mean rituals or customs. I am referring to the teachings the apostles gave to their successors, and they passed on to their successors, and so on. Also note that I do not accept all teachings that have been handed down as apostolic. I do however, accept the Nicene and Apostles' creeds as genuine summaries of Apostolic tradition, and also accept the theological decisions of the ecumenical councils of the undivided church (that is, the first seven councils) to be the same. These do not contradict Scripture. At least, not a correct interpretation of Scripture. In regenerate man, Reason is trustworthy, as the mind has been transformed by the Holy Spirit. Well that depends I guess, what doctrine one follows. Reason has to have a baseline, and it is the baseline that directs eventual reasoning. A Catholic, or an Episcopalian, or born again Charismatic, would all reason from a different platform. Scripture is the only truth. And again, looking at 2 Thes 2:15 The Thessalonians were told to hold onto in their Christian beliefs, to hold fast the traditions which they had been taught, or the doctrine of the gospel, which had been delivered by Paul, either by word or letter. But.... People still have differing versions of doctrine. Scripture is the only truth, not reason, nor the doctrine many practice along with the dogma. This is getting us nowhere. Lets just agree that we both agree on the Trinity, shall we?

So then, do you disagree with the logic expressed in the quote that I cited above?

If you apply science to something as basic as the trinity, then you have to apply science to every word you read in the bible. Can't have it both ways.. Faith convinced me. What you are saying is that one has to read the bible, apply science and then believe. The true facts are one believes through faith, is saved through faith, and reads the bible true faith. Nothing else but faith is required. As soon as we start looking for more, we are going down a path we should not... I agree that nothing but faith is required. However, when two alternatives have Scriptures to back them up (such as Trinitarian vs Unitarian), how do you pick which position to accept? As an Anglican/Episcopalian, I believe that we have three sources of truth that work together to help us find the truth. Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. The Scientific Method is simply an extension of Reason. God bless you! I have to disagree. I believe we only need Scripture to give us the truth. The problem we find is that people read scripture differently. Problem with tradition is that it is a human construct. Hence it is flawed from the outset. Same goes for reason. Reason is mostly based on latter experience, and that experience is usually based on a singular past (our own). Who is to say that past was righteous, or that we learned anything from it, because those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. So scripture is the only truth, and what all believers should have is a good grasp of hermeneutics. I think it is the first thing we should learn before mining the bible for truth, otherwise our tools are blunt and our lamps dim, if you get my drift. The New Testament clearly teaches us that the apostles gave us traditions. 2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2. By tradition I don't mean rituals or customs. I am referring to the teachings the apostles gave to their successors, and they passed on to their successors, and so on. Also note that I do not accept all teachings that have been handed down as apostolic. I do however, accept the Nicene and Apostles' creeds as genuine summaries of Apostolic tradition, and also accept the theological decisions of the ecumenical councils of the undivided church (that is, the first seven councils) to be the same. These do not contradict Scripture. At least, not a correct interpretation of Scripture. In regenerate man, Reason is trustworthy, as the mind has been transformed by the Holy Spirit.

I was reading this topic from the Controversial issues forum: One thing wyguy said in this topic was: And everyone agreed with this. But here is the rub. Jews also don't believe that Jesus is God. So by this logic, Jews also worship a different God than us Christians. Your thoughts?

Lol. You sure that wasn't meant as a comedy? Or perhaps they were just mocking Christianity?

If you apply science to something as basic as the trinity, then you have to apply science to every word you read in the bible. Can't have it both ways.. Faith convinced me. What you are saying is that one has to read the bible, apply science and then believe. The true facts are one believes through faith, is saved through faith, and reads the bible true faith. Nothing else but faith is required. As soon as we start looking for more, we are going down a path we should not... I agree that nothing but faith is required. However, when two alternatives have Scriptures to back them up (such as Trinitarian vs Unitarian), how do you pick which position to accept? As an Anglican/Episcopalian, I believe that we have three sources of truth that work together to help us find the truth. Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. The Scientific Method is simply an extension of Reason. God bless you!

In my opinion, all fundamentalists are evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. Usually these two groups come out believing the same things. So how do I justify differentiating between them? Fundamentalism is more than a set of beliefs, its a worldview. Its the worldview that your interpretations of the Bible is the only possible plain sense meaning of Scripture, and so its the Gospel Truth. They have a hard time realizing that its only an interpretation. They tend to see those who disagree with you as apostates and heretics, or at least ignorant of the Bible. There are some evangelicals that I have met, however, that have no problem saying that non-salvational doctrines are just different interpretations of the Bible. Thats why I say all fundamentalists are evangelicals but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. BTW, I am neither. These are just my observations. I am a Christian, but do not think that I would fit into either group because some of my beliefs are from orthodox.

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Jesus is God. I affirm it every week in my recitation of the Nicene Creed at church. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't believe it but still recited the Creed every week. That being said, I grew up a Unitarian Christian (NOT Unitarian Universalist, although I did attend a UU church during my atheist years). There are plenty of Scriptures for both sides of the debate. Science convinced me of the Trinity concept. God embedded several trinities within nature. I found this great explanation quite a while back, and still enjoy to read through it from time to time.

That sounds like a very delightful topic to discuss. Perhaps I will start a conversation about it this evening after I get off work. For now, however, I will simply give a summation of my beliefs and go more in depth in another topic. I don't want to go too far off topic, you know! I believe the Bible was divinely inspired. However, I do not believe that it was meant as a scientific textbook. The Bible makes use of metaphors, allegories, and symbolism all the time. Some are clear examples, such as Jesus' parables, the book of Revelation, and certain parts of the book of Daniel. Others are not so clear, such as Genesis. Let me also say that I do believe that other parts are meant to be taken literally, such as the majority of the New Testament (the Gospels and Acts, and the epistles). I do believe in the virgin birth, the crucifixion, Resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. Well, that should be a good day and God bless!

What you describe here is naturalistic evolution, aka atheistic evolution. I believe bringing together science and faith can complement each other. Faith describes the who and the why of the act of creation (who did it? God. Why? In order to have fellowship with us.) and science can explain the how. Not all evolutionists are naturalistic. There are many scientists who are theistic evolutionists, as well as many very spiritual Christians. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

You are mistaken on several counts. First of all, there is only one account of creation. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are the same account. Genesis 2 is a summation of the account in Genesis 1 and in addition narrows its primary focus to the creation of man and woman as set forth in Genesis 1:26-29. Actually, it is two different accounts. The first account has a totally different order for how things were created. As one example, man is created is created after the animals in the first account, but is created before the animals in the second account. Theistic Evolution is an oxymoron. It is as logically inconsistent as "Atheistic Christianity." Orthodox Evolutionists reject God's involvement in Evolution in either a direct or indirect way. In order to hold to something like Theistic Evolution, one must degrade the theory of Evolution and/or the Bible. One cannot be a true Evolutionist AND a true Bible believer at the same time. I am the contradiction to your claim that one cant be both. I am a Bible believer (I just disagree with you on how some passages should be interpreted) AND I am an evolutionist. If I wasn't a Bible believer, why would I read the Bible daily? I read four passages daily, one from the Old Testament, one from the Psalms, one from the epistles, and one from the Gospels.

I think the problem is not in the Bible, but in our interpretation of the Bible. I have to agree with the ancient theologian Augustine on this one. According to Wikipedia: