Behind the Obama Madrassa Hoax

[Kansasdad]

Forrest I find it odd that you cite a verse where Paul says that homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of God. Yet you have said that you believe that they can in fact, be Christians while at the same time, committed, practicing homosexuals. I guess you would consider Paul's remarks "sanctimonius rubbish?"

No, I think its up to God whether they can enter the kingdom of heaven.

I just went by the footnotes on the verse in my Bible (New American Bible - Catholic Bible).

2 [9-10] A catalogue of typical vices that exclude from the kingdom of God and that should be excluded from God's church. Such lists (cf 1 Cor 5:10) reflect the common moral sensibility of the New Testament period.

3 [9] The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10.

So, anything pretty much goes. You can live in aberrant sin, but as long as you say some creeds, and assent to the Christian religion, that is pretty much all it takes in your book, isn't it? You are right, it is up to God who gets into heaven. The problem is you say that as if no one really knows what God says about it. You act as if the path to heaven is really just some ambiguous theologlical position, and none of can really know anything at all. Seems that God would be unfair to have a standard by which we are judged but leave in the dark as to what that standard REALLY is. It is not like God to leave us in the dark and then judge us for we could not possiblly have known.

The truth is that God has told us who will and will not enter the Kingdom of God. His rules never changed. You are simply unwilling to be honest about what the Bible says, and are unwilling to face facts.

Kind of sounds like the Once Saved Always Saved argument taken to its inevitable conclusion.

[chapmac]

kind of smells like the sweat one breaks when they expend all their energy casting stones from inside a tiny glass house

lethal and unhealthy

[Guest shiloh357]

Forrest I find it odd that you cite a verse where Paul says that homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of God. Yet you have said that you believe that they can in fact, be Christians while at the same time, committed, practicing homosexuals. I guess you would consider Paul's remarks "sanctimonius rubbish?"

No, I think its up to God whether they can enter the kingdom of heaven.

I just went by the footnotes on the verse in my Bible (New American Bible - Catholic Bible).

2 [9-10] A catalogue of typical vices that exclude from the kingdom of God and that should be excluded from God's church. Such lists (cf 1 Cor 5:10) reflect the common moral sensibility of the New Testament period.

3 [9] The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10.

So, anything pretty much goes. You can live in aberrant sin, but as long as you say some creeds, and assent to the Christian religion, that is pretty much all it takes in your book, isn't it? You are right, it is up to God who gets into heaven. The problem is you say that as if no one really knows what God says about it. You act as if the path to heaven is really just some ambiguous theologlical position, and none of can really know anything at all. Seems that God would be unfair to have a standard by which we are judged but leave in the dark as to what that standard REALLY is. It is not like God to leave us in the dark and then judge us for we could not possiblly have known.

The truth is that God has told us who will and will not enter the Kingdom of God. His rules never changed. You are simply unwilling to be honest about what the Bible says, and are unwilling to face facts.

Kind of sounds like the Once Saved Always Saved argument taken to its inevitable conclusion.

No, not at all. I was simply pointing out that he has a liberal position on morality that stands in contradiction to the Bible. To Forrest, a person can live in aberrant sin unrepentantly but that is not sufficient to say whether or not they are really a follower of Jesus. It is one thing to stumble in a moment of weakness. It is quite another to live, practice and enjoy sin and yet still demand to be considered a "Christian." Some of us actually believe the Bible. That is offensiveto Forrest's morality.

[Guest wdjd38]

Jan. 27, 2007 - What will the first full week of Campaign '08 be remembered for? That Barack Obama was under attack for his behavior as a 6-year-old. It

[Hypathia]

Forrest I find it odd that you cite a verse where Paul says that homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of God. Yet you have said that you believe that they can in fact, be Christians while at the same time, committed, practicing homosexuals. I guess you would consider Paul's remarks "sanctimonius rubbish?"

I'd like to comment even though you directed it at forrest.

Jesus tells us time and again that divorce and remarriage is adultery but I don't see anyone saying Christians that have done this are non-christian. I'd say a homosexual that abstains from sex and practices celibacy could be a Christian just as easily as all those non-biblically divorced and remarried folks who fill the church pews and the collection plates every Sunday.

Where does Mr. Obama stand on the issues of Pro Life and Pro Choice?

Don't forget to ask the candidates where they stand on the issues of poverty, fair wages, humility, charity, and the environment too. Sexual morality isn't the only topic covered in the Bible.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Hypathia

[kat8585]

Forrest I find it odd that you cite a verse where Paul says that homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of God. Yet you have said that you believe that they can in fact, be Christians while at the same time, committed, practicing homosexuals. I guess you would consider Paul's remarks "sanctimonius rubbish?"

I'd like to comment even though you directed it at forrest.

Jesus tells us time and again that divorce and remarriage is adultery but I don't see anyone saying Christians that have done this are non-christian. I'd say a homosexual that abstains from sex and practices celibacy could be a Christian just as easily as all those non-biblically divorced and remarried folks who fill the church pews and the collection plates every Sunday.

Where does Mr. Obama stand on the issues of Pro Life and Pro Choice?

Don't forget to ask the candidates where they stand on the issues of poverty, fair wages, humility, charity, and the environment too. Sexual morality isn't the only topic covered in the Bible.

We already know where Hillary stands on these issues. That's why we shudder at her winning.

[Guest shiloh357]

I'd like to comment even though you directed it at forrest.

Jesus tells us time and again that divorce and remarriage is adultery but I don't see anyone saying Christians that have done this are non-christian. I'd say a homosexual that abstains from sex and practices celibacy could be a Christian just as easily as all those non-biblically divorced and remarried folks who fill the church pews and the collection plates every Sunday.

Divorce and Homosexuality cannot be put in the same class. Divorce occurs for a variety of reasons, and not all of it is unjustified. Jesus dealt with Rabbinic misinterpretations and excesses where divorce was concerned. The Rabbis had become to loose with the concept, and it was their error that Jesus was dealing with on the subject of divorce. Divorce needs to be examined on a case by case basis. You simply cannot make a blanket condemnation of divorce.

Homosexuality is different. I noticed that you tried to change how the debate is being framed. You mentioned nonpracticing, "celbate" homosexuals. The issue is practicing homosexuals. My concern is that practicing homosexuals are seen fit to be labeled as "Christians" by those who pretty think that anyone who chooses to wear the title of Christian should be allowed to do so, without question.

I find it odd that some people ( not you personally) who will reject that infallibility of the Bible and its innerrancy still find the ability to use the Bible to support their liberal, anti-Christ doctrines, such as the notion that homosexuals can practice that lifestyle and yet still claim to be followers of Jesus. Typical liberal absurdity.

[Hypathia]

I don't think practicing homosexuals should be labeled chrisitans that why I specifically said homosexuals who abstain from sex and practice celibacy.

Divorce and Homosexuality cannot be put in the same class. Divorce occurs for a variety of reasons, and not all of it is unjustified. Jesus dealt with Rabbinic misinterpretations and excesses where divorce was concerned. The Rabbis had become to loose with the concept, and it was their error that Jesus was dealing with on the subject of divorce. Divorce needs to be examined on a case by case basis. You simply cannot make a blanket condemnation of divorce.

Jesus was very specific in regards to divorce that's why I said "unbiblical" divorce and remarriage so yes those who are unbiblically divorced and remarried are indeed in the same category despite all your but, but, but, but, buts to the contrary.

I find it odd that some people ( not you personally) who will reject that infallibility of the Bible and its innerrancy still find the ability to use the Bible to support their liberal, anti-Christ doctrines, such as the notion that homosexuals can practice that lifestyle and yet still claim to be followers of Jesus. Typical liberal absurdity.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing with the divorce verses? Aren't you making excuses the same way those who say a homosexual can be sexually active and still be a Christian?

[forrestkc]

No, not at all. I was simply pointing out that he has a liberal position on morality that stands in contradiction to the Bible. To Forrest, a person can live in aberrant sin unrepentantly but that is not sufficient to say whether or not they are really a follower of Jesus. It is one thing to stumble in a moment of weakness. It is quite another to live, practice and enjoy sin and yet still demand to be considered a "Christian." Some of us actually believe the Bible. That is offensiveto Forrest's morality.

I would describe it more as a conscionable position on morality rather than simply a liberal position on it. However, your insinuation is that a liberal cannot be moral, which really is nothing but hatemongering.

Those of us who live and work around people who come from a variety of different backgrounds, lifestyles, and beliefs, I suppose are a little more tolerant of the diversity that is the hallmark of this great nation. I have worked with gays and lesbians, been neighbors with them, and friends with gays and lesbians. Contrary to some of the vitriolic and mean-spirited characterizations of gays and lesbians routinely exposed on these boards, I have personally found that most of them are good, decent, conscionable people who make a positive contribution to their communities. In fact, a lot of them are much nicer and less judgmental than a lot of socially intolerant Christians are who do nothing but bash and ridicule those who are different than they are, yet when called on it claim

[Guest shiloh357]

I would describe it more as a conscionable position on morality rather than simply a liberal position on it. However, your insinuation is that a liberal cannot be moral, which really is nothing but hatemongering.

Oh yeah, the old "hatemongering" canard. Calling it sin, is not hatemongering. Hatemongering would be something like denying them their civil and human rights as equal members of the community, something I have already stated I am against. I have never supported or advocated any form mistreatment or abuse of homosexuals. So you can stop sniveling and whining about hatemongering. It is really getting old.

Those of us who live and work around people who come from a variety of different backgrounds, lifestyles, and beliefs, I suppose are a little more tolerant of the diversity that is the hallmark of this great nation. I have worked with gays and lesbians, been neighbors with them, and friends with gays and lesbians. Contrary to some of the vitriolic and mean-spirited characterizations of gays and lesbians routinely exposed on these boards, I have personally found that most of them are good, decent, conscionable people who make a positive contribution to their communities. In fact, a lot of them are much nicer and less judgmental than a lot of socially intolerant Christians are who do nothing but bash and ridicule those who are different than they are, yet when called on it claim