Below is a comment from my post-called "Jesus Speaks on Behalf of Gay People" submitted on October 13th. I feel compelled to feature this due to the hypocrisy of the comments I have received. This is the best and clearest example of what is wrong with the Christian thinking of today. My hats off to Robert A.
Robert A. Oct 14, 2009, 10:14am EDT
RK S, you seem to believe God has called homosexuality an abomination, but I'd be willing to bet that you do not observe the Sabbath by doing no work on that day. According to the same God (being that you believe the Bible is the literal Word of God) the sin of doing work on the Sabbath requires the Biblical penalty of death. Would you say that's an indication that not observing the Sabbath is worse than "abomination?" |
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 200
So why not use this feeling for gay people too? Quote "So, some people aren't perfect.....what's your point??....."
He's pointing out that Christians tend to pick and choose what is and isn't important to follow in the bible according to what's important to them. If they're stingy, tithing is ignored. If they like extramarital sex, just one little commandment is bypassed. If they are lawyers or salesmen, don't even think of pointing out "though shalt not bear false witness".
Homosexuality, however, is a common whipping-boy because the majority of them aren't gay. With this, they can point to and stand with the other "Christians" and look/feel all righteous and they condemn the practice, never once considering to point out their own continual sins in this judgmental crowd.
Did I get it right, John?
This is very true, and it is sad.
Jesus never encouraged his disciples to focus on the sins of other people.
I am not aware of any that exempts homosexuality.
I really do not know ?
In the mean time, this is what Jesus says about homosexual acts:
"There is NOTHING from outside a man, that entering into him can defile him."
In the mean time, there is nothing in the Bible which condemns homosexuality. People have tried to force that misinterpretation on passages which do not support them.
I have no time for this..I wish you well. So many outlooks on all kinds of stuff...find something kool to write about.
For me that makes most of the comments here irrelevant.
In the Bible it says that God gave us his commandments for one reason...to show us how impossible it is to keep them...and to show us all our need for the saving grace of Christ. It also says that if we have broken one commandment, we have broken them all. In that respect, we are all adulterers, murderers, liars, sabbath-breakers, thieves, etc. None of us are worthy, and NO Christian has the right to point a finger at any homosexual. I don't care if you are Billy Graham or the Pope...you are a sinner just like the person you are pointing at.
If we someone lost in some sin, the best thing we can do for that person is embrace him, love him and pray for Him. When we look at that person's brokenness, we should be able to see our own brokenness. This should enable us to feel empathy and compassion for the person, because we come face to face with our own humanity
I'm sorry to get off on a rant, John. But you touched on a subject that is one of my pet peeves....and I think its good to have the discussion you started. Perhaps some eyes will be opened.
Cheryl that box you speak of; what people do not realize is that it is now and will be opened in heaven for all to see at the Judgment Seat of the Lord.
I do not see where all this is leading as to an intelligent conversation regarding the homosexual problem (and it is a problem, primarily a social problem). One does not have to believe in God to abhor homosexuality and to conclude that it is an aberant practice that is self serving of some mentally disfunctional (from a social point of view) people. It is a socially destructive social infection as I see it and its practitioners need to be helped back into a socially productive attitude. But it is only one result of a world problem that is primarily religious in nature without having anything to do with homosexuality as such.
I would be happy to discuss any passages you think support the anti-gay message.
In the mean time, I do not believe that God is a nasty little sex-obsessed monster who hates people just because they love one another.
Homosexuality is not a sin, I, of the Episcopalian church, once, know many gay ministers and it is so in the Anglican Church as well.
What someone does in their bedroom is of no concern to anyone but the two consenting adults involved.
Believe as you want but don't consider yourself a Christian except as you are willing to disobey God (the God of the Bible Who Christians believe is also Jesus at least in some sense). There are clergymen who have committed murder but that doesn't mean that God condones murder. As to your statement, "What someone does in their bedroom is of no concern to anyone but the two consenting adults involved," you are right, but it is of concern to God as everything one does or doesn't do is most emphatically the "concern" of God. That is the whole point of religion. For those who believe otherwise, they are arch hypocrites and pretenders.
First, God (of the Bible) doesn't hate people because they practice homosexuality. They punish themselves. God simply states that it should not be practiced and does punish those who disobey His commands. God is all forgiving in some ways but historically has always destroyed and killed those who disobeyed Him. Do you know what God did when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai and found the people worshipping a calf of god? This is the same God Who Christians do not place lower or with less authority than Jesus, even equating the two. I like Dan E.'s explanation and agree with it in the main. Second, God is not a "sex-obseseed monster" but it is the homosexual practitioner who makes of him/herself a "sex obsessed" monster. God is not concerned so much with the salvation of some individual, (particularly those who wantonly disobey His advice and commands). God has always exacted very strict punishment for those people. Death, to God, is not so bad as the disobediance. God's commands are for the benefit of the social evolution of humankind and not for the personal benefit of anyone who wants to make up his or her own set of what's "right or wrong." Third, not only doesn't hate people because they are homosexuals, he doesn't hate them "just because they love one another." There is a difference between loving one another and having sex with one another. You, apparently, make the mistake of most people today of confusing love with sex. I love a number of men, my father (now dead), my sons, and others. But I don't have sex with them or want to have sex with them. Love and sex are two different things which homosexuals seem to ignore out of sense of convenience. Anyway, if you have difficulty seeing this and understanding what I'm getting at, then there is no sense in continuing a conversation.
My sugges
Killing and stealing are also found among various species and animal kingdoms. All these things are "natural" so how can we say they are wrong for mankind as well?
Comparing human behavior to that of animals is unrealistic and self serving to those who wish to behave contrary to historical motives of the human population as a whole. It is very disingenuous.
However, this aside, it has been historically categorized as totally unacceptable by God. I take God's word over yours or anyone else's. Homosexuality is the bane of an orderly society. It is not just coincicental that the rise in homosexuality as an acceptable life style is concurrent with the rise in rape and murder, even though they seem unconnected. Both are symptoms of a decaying moral climate. This rampant hypocrisy is turning our society into a moraless morass.
I was being facetious. It appears you do understand my point.
I would not be suprised if someone on this thread accuses you of bigotry and hate because of your Biblical beliefs on homosexuality. I believe some day very soon those of us who speak out against homosexuality for what it is will be convicted of "hate crimes." Speaking out against someone's sexual perversion does not mean I hate them.
Wyoming Catt,
Stealing from the "rich" can be easliy rationalized as not hurting anyone but helping others. This is exactly what pure socialism is about. Murder can be rationalized as helping someone. Especially someone suffering from a terminal illness. But it is murder just the same and it is still wrong.
We can't base our ideas of right and wrong on how something may hurt or not hurt a person. Parents would never be able to effectively raise their children. Correcting a child can be emotionally painful for a child, but benefits the child in the end. This really isn't much different in any other social settings such as employee and employer relationships.
"But if there were no homosexual activities" You must be reading some religious website's explanation of the disease instead of scientific ones or the CDC's. But your argument becomes silly when you look at the timeline for whites' inroads into this country and Native Americans' demise from heretofore unknown diseases like smallpox.
"However, this aside, it has been historically categorized as totally unacceptable by God. " That all depends on which version of the bible you're reading. Its widely known the monks who translated the texts in KJ's time not only changed wording here and there as they saw fit, but KJ himself "suggested" some things be changed, included and, to a large extent, excluded. And then there are the Apocrypha and other manuscripts that counter the bible, as well... but I suppose all this is an entirely different post. I hope to see you there someday.
There is no "rise" in rape and murder nowadays. You're just more aware of it because news is xmitted instantly instead of it trickling into communities over days or weeks like the 50's and before. And I would fully imagine the murders and rapes were at an American all-time high during slavery days. It just wasn't considered as such then and few cared to talk about it.
But it was interesting to find out where you're coming from, all the same. Thank you.
We're not talking about a person, we're talking an entire group of people, a very large group of 'other' Americans. Your argument, like Hawley's, has no weight when you look at how the laws in this country favored one group above the rest.
You're no longer allowed to advertise for and pay for Native American scalps;
You're no longer allowed to kill scores of Chinese just because work is hard to find;
You're no longer allowed to segregate schools, buses and water fountains;
You're no longer allowed to deny different-race couples the right to marry (except in Louisiana);
You will soon no longer be allowed to deny homosexuals the common human rights now enjoyed by all other Americans.
If a parent is having trouble teaching their children the wrongness of such hateful attitudes, God help that parent and that child.
Homosexuals have human rights NOW. What they want is special class status. They want their "lifestyle" approved by all. They want it taught to all children as being "normal." They want their perversion to be on an equal basis of one man - one woman biblical marriage. There is no comparison between the two. The former is a Biblical God ordained institution that has been proven to benefit individuals and soceity has a whole and the latter is condemned by God and past civiiaztions with sexual perversions have failed.
Sexual preference is not a civil right it is a choice. A minority person can't wake up one morning and decide to change his or her skin color. However, a person can and many do come out of the homosexual "lifestyle."
To compare the radical homosexual agenda with the civil rights movement is to spit in the face of Martin Luther King.
It is the politicized efforts of the so called "gay community" to obtain special status and to recruit more people to their distorted life style that I do not agree with. As an example, "hate crimes" is a perversion of law. What crime is committed out of "love?" Why special punishment for those who attack homosexuals? Or any other "minority"? All crimes are "hate crimes."
As I recall there was a movement in San Francisco to insist that since about 28% of the population were "gay" that 28% of the police force should be mandated for the city to be "gay." Does it not follow that if, say, 1% of the population is a psychomaniac, 1% of the police force should be psychomaniacs also?
The failure here is our partisan political system, which is at the mercy of special interests which delight in getting large numbers of "zombie brained" people to chant "two legs bad, four legs good".
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.
Just a clarification,
Robert seemed to be under the impression that the penalty for working on the sabbath was greater than the penalty for practicing homosexuality.
I personally don't care what a person chooses to believe, that is up to each.
But many try to justify their beliefs using what they perceive as ideals in the Bible rather than actual Biblical scripture.
In my opinion it would be better to say 'I think there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and am going to conduct my life in that manner', rather than try to validate that position using the Bible.
The Bible does not condone homosexuality neither does the teachings of Jesus.
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.<<
Leviticus 20:13 from Darby Translation (DARBY)
Leviticus 20
13
And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Note that in this verse they speak of mankind (generic plural) and a woman (singular, specific). *and* it mentions that *both* of them will be put to death.
Who could the "both" of them" possibly be? It *has* to be the man and the woman, because the term for "mankind" was generic and non-specific.
So this passage is a condemnation of what the man is doing with the *woman*, not what he does with men. Otherwise it would have said that *all* of them, or all the *men*, would be put to death.
The intent, if anything, *condoned* homosexuality. It clearly implies that sex with men is a natural occurance, but men should not engage in those particular sex acts (performing anal sex or receiving oral sex) with women.
This is, of course, the passage most commonly quoted by people who have just murdered a homosexual as their justification, which only goes to show that your misinterpretation of those scriptures results in evil and only evil.
The original Hebrew also gives an interesting twist to this passage. THere IS an interpretation of the word you interpret as "a male" and others interpret as "mankind" which could POSSIBLY be used here. But in that case it refers to a male of ANY AGE, and specifically does NOT include "consent", which means that the passage would be calling on you to put to death a child who was raped by a man.
So unless you want to claim that God wants you to go around murdering the victims of child abuse, the word refers to MANKIND, not A MALE, and therefore when the term BOTH is used it refers to the man and the woman.
Also, if you want to use it to justify killing the victims of child abuse, that makes the term "both" difficult to apply because now there are THREE individuals involved -- the man, the "male" and the woman. Both could STILL just as easily refer to the man and the woman. The only way to get rid of this problem is to use the version of the word which refers to MANKIND -- not an individual male -- and "both" would refer to the man and the woman.
And Jesus DOES condone homosexual acts. He provided a test which HE said was EXTREMELY important for you to hear and understand, which showed when something was just a tradition of man and NOT the Word of God. That test was the following:
"There is NOTHING from outside a man, that entering into him can defile him". That neatly covers your misinterpretation of Leviticus.
John
There are many more references of the Bible NOT accepting homosexuality as is shown in this commentary:
The Bible is not oblivious to homosexual practices. Such things are specifically referred to several times in the Scriptures. For instance, we read at Romans 1:26, 27, according to The New Testament in Modern English by J. B. Phillips:
“God therefore handed them over to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged the normal practices of sexual intercourse for something which is abnormal and unnatural. Similarly the men, turning from natural intercourse with women, were swept into lustful passions for one another.”
So we read at 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10: “Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion . . . will possess the kingdom of God.” (The New English Bible) Or, as the verse is paraphrased in The Living Bible: “Homosexuals—will have no share in his kingdom.”
Jesus said, as recorded at Matthew 19:9 according to the Revised Standard Version (RSV): “Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” The Greek word for “unchastity” that Matthew here employs in penning Jesus’ words is por·nei´a. Por·nei´a is related to the verb por·neu´o, meaning “to give one’s self to unlawful sexual intercourse.”
The best way to understand what is taken in by these terms is to find out how they are used in other places. A similar word appears in the Bible at Jude 7 in describing the sin of certain ancient cities: “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally [an intensive form of por·neu´o] and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” (RSV) For what type of ‘immorality’ or por·nei´a were those at Sodom and Gomorrah condemned? The Bible narrative at Genesis 19:4, 5 answers:
“The men of Sodom, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: ‘Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.’”
These men of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexuals. In fact, the English word “sodomy,” which particularly means ‘intercourse between two men,’ is drawn from the name of the city of Sodom. The Bible would call their sin por·nei´a. Jesus said por·nei´a was so wrong morally that it was a basis for severing the marriage bond.
Further, remember that Jesus was a Jew living under the law of Moses. His use of por·nei´a, says Edward Robinson’s Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, apparently includes ‘all intercourse interdicted by the Mosaic Law.’ That Law included among its injunctions: “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.” (Lev. 18:22, The Torah, The Five Books of Moses, by the Jewish Publication Society of America) Por·nei´a, the word used by Jesus, obviously embraced this command of God.
Also, it should be noted that homosexuality had been condemned by God before the law of Moses was even given. The account about Sodom and Gomorrah, referred to earlier, proves this fact; those cities were destroyed by God over 400 years before the law of Moses came into existence. Jesus was aware of that.—Luke 17:28, 29, 32.
Beyond doubt, therefore, Jesus did in fact condemn all such ‘unchaste’ practices as homosexuality. As reason would indicate to us, the Bible is consistent on this matter. Paul’s words are backed up by the authority of the Son of God.
BTW can you post where it says so in the Bible?
Interesting Cheryl,
So do we not bother?
I disagree with your assessment and say that Jesus was all about responsibility and following the law! making an honest effort to follow the word of God.
And although I agree that we are all sinners, it is our responsibility as Christians to be aware of what is a sin according to Gods written word and not condone sin and make the effort to not be involved in sin.
Albeit a tired and long used saying, Jesus was all about hating the sin, not the sinner!
I just want to clarify that I am not saying Jesus condones sin in any way. I just don't think someone else's sin is any worse than my own...and that we will reach people more by loving them than by condemning them. Some Christians seem to think that by loving someone they are condoning their sin...and that is not true. We are called to love one another.
"For the commandments against adultery and murder and stealing and coveting...and any other commandment...are all summed up in this one commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to anyone, so love satisfies all of God's requirements." Romans 13: 9 - 10
Love does no wrong to anyone, so love satisfies all of God's requirements." Romans 13: 9 - 10
I agree but what is the "love" that this scripture talking about?
What is love?
"Everybody seems to believe that love is a good thing. However, not all agree what is love. Is love that warm touchy-feely feeling a person has when he is with a familiar person? According to the Bible, love is caring in action. Love isn't what we feel, but what we do."
Rich Deem.
Again responsibility! The love of the Bible is about action and responsibility, not a feeling that makes you feel good about yourself.
What that love is depends on the Greek word for love, of which there are three: eros, agape, and philia: sexual, compassionate, and generic.
So you believe that all those Hebrew traditions that Jesus himself broke are the word of God, and that Jesus is now burning in hell?
The question is, "which law"?
Many people opposing gay rights try to push the idea that the old Levitican laws still apply (even when they don't follow all of them themselves) refer to a passage in Matthew.
In Matthew Christ seems to claim the old laws are still intact. He says "I have not come to destroy the law, but fulfill it".
On the other hand, he *does* appear to destroy and flout the old laws. He worked on the Sabbath. He turned people away from stoning a woman who had sinned. He also provided a test for showing which if the old laws were not from God: "There is NOTHING from without a man, that entering into him can defile him."
How could he possibly be both fulfilling the law *and* disobeying them at the same time? The most likely answer is that the traditions of the Jews (such as the anti-gay traditions that Jesus said were wrong) were NOT what Jesus considered to be the law.
Galations 5:14 : "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Lev. 19:18 "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD."
See also Lev.19:34 "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."
Ephesians 3:6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
The message shows up a number of times throughout the Bible. I like the Galations version because it includes the phrase: "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this;" It clarifies what Jesus meant when he talks about the law, when he says that he is not here to change the law but to fulfill it.
Because Jesus *did* fulfill the law. The true law of "Love thy neighbor", not the old tribal laws and traditions.
When Jesus told the story about the good Samaritan, he made a point about a Levite passing by without helping, as an example of someone not living up to those commandments. It appears that he did not think that much of the Levitican rules and those people who felt that those tribal laws and traditions took priority over the law of "Love thy neighbor".
Jesus also spoke of what is necessary to get into heaven -- and that had NOTHING to do with the Levitican tradition:
Matthew 22:36-40 :: King James Version (KJV)
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Matthew 19:17-19 :: King James Version (KJV)
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Jesus also pointed out how people will be judged, using a methodology that seems completely foreign to those people intent on oppressing gays:
Matthew 25:31-46 :: King James Version (KJV)
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Matthew 7:21-23 :: King James Version (KJV)
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.
John
A very good verse.
"For no one can ever be made right in God's sight by doing what his law commands. For the more we know God's law, the clearer it becomes that we aren't obeying it." Romans 3: 20
"Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on our good deeds. It is based on our faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law." Romans 3: 27 -28
"Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! Only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law." Romans 3
Yes I see.
But I see those scripture very differently and think they were spoken/written for a very different reason than to relate to people of the futility of trying to obey Gods law.
Here is my thinking on those scripture and others that give the same impression.
Many of the religious leaders of the time were very prideful in their adherence to the law, they felt it was all that was needed to be considered righteous, and those who did not follow the law, even those who could not follow the law even due to circumstances beyond their control were considered by them and many in society as lesser in the eyes of God.
Jesus saw this injustice and was trying to change such thinking.
Example:
Before a woman could enter the temple to worship she had to clean herself, but many of the poor did not have access to bathing facilities. there were public bathing facilities available but any one who was seen as "unclean" (such as a woman experiencing her monthly cycle) were not allowed to use such facilities.
I believe that it was these injustices and the pride fullness of the religious leaders of the time that led to these scriptures not in exclaiming the futility in following Gods law but in exclaiming to those leaders that simply following the law is not enough.
Your personal opinion Thomas, but to those who hold the faith there is no question of its relevance and validity.
Your opinion Thomas,
Your analogy I don't think is an accurate one.
You don't give up the lessons of the 4th grade when you learn the lessons of the 5th.
You are creative in your argument it's just that it is not applicable.
John,
Isn't such a transformation already taking place? The Christian faith is made up of thousands of differing doctrines.
There are doctrines that accept homosexuality as not a sin, some allow practicing homosexuals to serve as clergy.
I see the that such a transformation has been taking place for decades if not century's.
"Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation" - because they said, "He has an unclean spirit." (Mark 3:28-30)
"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." (Matthew 12:31-32)
Do you have any scripture to back up your belief on this John?
The context with Marylin's quote in Mark 3 has to do with Jesus casting out demons. The scribes accused Jesus and the Holy Spirit of being a demon.
This is Jesus resposne:
And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is rejecting Jesus as God and the Saviour of our sins.
People need to rejoice in God, not themselves. When we see God as he really is we are cut to the heart and understand our misreable sinful state.
Here is Isaiah experience coming to understand more about the living God:
Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.
Isaiah came to understand the scope of his sin when God's holiness was revealed to him.
Here is John's response to his vision of God sitting on his throne in heaven recorded in Revelation 4"
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
My understanding from this is that we are not to "rejoice" in our lives but rejoice in the majesty and holiness of the God who created us for HIS pleasure.
Sometimes we as Christians (and I include myself) try to take over the role of the Holy Spirit in convicting others of their sin. This is usaually counter productive. Christians need to point others to Jesus by using their own lives as an example of Christ's love.
What better way to show other's our sinful state then to quote scripture of God's majesty and holiness. But we can't ignore the obvious teachings that deal with blatant sins such as homosexuality. To do so would take away from the holiness of God. I don't care if people reject what I believe. I just hope they don't reject our Holy God as the Saviour of our sins. This is what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is.
Being me and as far away from christianity as one can possibly get I can't comment within the framework but I appreciate your perspective~
Hmm......Have you checked out your title??
What kind of people burn and pillage their own city after there team does something good.
We should all pray for the Los Angeles Dodgers tonight so those people living in Philadelphia are safe.
Mt 12:10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
Mt 12:11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
Mt 12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
" . . the sin of doing work on the Sabbath requires the Biblical penalty of death."
Well that is not actually a "law" that humans are told to enforce. It is a part of a "covenant" with Israel, and there is no actual procedure given for deciding if someone has done what would constitute prohibited work, nor any actual directive for any person(s) to themselves kill anyone. It is what God said would "surely" befall one that broke the Commandment, but that is also what He told Adam and Eve about the Commandment He gave them, and they were not immediately put to death, as is being implied that the phrase automatically means, in that comment. It was God Himself that rendered the Judgment, in the example given in the Book (Numbers 15:32~), not a group of humans.
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
We are speaking of what are called "Ordinances" here, to some extent, which were rules specifically for the "Sword of Israel", which is to say rules of the "military camp" that was formed with those led out of bondage in Egypt, to perform a targeted removal of certain beings. These rules were rather harsh and strict, just as is true of military camps today. In such circumstances as living on the move, in a very large group entail, discipline and sanitation become critical aspects of orderliness, and that had to be taught to these slaves, who new little of warfare or life in the wilds.
Jesus himself sometimes speaks in this "Though shall surely die" sort of way, and is clearly not intending for anyone to start killing people;
There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
I tell you , Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Those who treat the Book as a simple thing, will virtually always go wandering off in some silly direction, cause it just is not a simple thing.
John,
" . . it is not a simple thing because man had written it and projected his own emotion and desperation into it."
Go to hell if you like, sir, but that Book is the Word of God, and it is not simple cause He wasn't trying to boss you, but teach you, I say.
This is why I say I am leery about the conscience that men are portraying from the bible, which seems to be a reflection of themselves versus God.
If it's not genuine, what in the world are you getting your understanding of Christ from? Whatever pops into your head?
This is a forum for those wishing to discuss matters of a religious or spiritual nature. Any and all perspectives are welcome and you can speak your mind, about matters of the soul, to your heart's content."
This is exactly the hypocrisy I am talking about with the so called Christian mind of today. It's ok as long as you do and say what you are told.
You hold Christians to a higher standard than you do anybody else??
If the Book is not His message, where are you getting your understanding of Him, our Lord, the reality we find ourselves in, etc.? How are you determining what it is to be a follower of . . what's his name?
Kindly act as if you really believe in the beneficent teachings of the bible rather than the examples of 12th-century Catholicism.
And, the sky is blue, in the daytime, when there are not too many clouds . . . so . . . what?
"Kindly act as if you really believe in the beneficent teachings of the bible rather than the examples of 12th-century Catholicism."
Kindly refrain from involving my name in your ditsy fantasy world comments, please, Wyoming. I don't do that to you . .
I guess I'm enjoying the peace of the thread, and your angry approach spoils it... I'm just asking you to chill.
If you'd rather continue in that vein, so be it.
Since when is defaming the Word, walking toward the light, BB?
Kill the sluts!!!
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
Kill the lovers!!!
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
Kill divorces!!!
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
Kill kinky people!!!
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
Promote gangbangs!!!
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
Aw, nuts!!!
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
Maybe, just maybe, he didn't see those laws the way you are representing them, Alex. Maybe, just maybe, he actually read the Book, and not just some homemade interpretations that miss major and/or minor aspects of what the words actually say? (Just a thought ; )
What laws would those be, Alex? I don't know any, myself . . .
:-) I actually love that thought, John. Now if maybe, just maybe, some other people would actually understand what you just said in response to my question and knock it off with their own homemade interpretations...
"Ask Mark, John . . You could also ask that Miz Owl character"
Why would I ask them? They didn't speak of "Christian laws, which weren't even developed until AFTER he died", you did. Were you just making things up? Were you referring to "laws" that you have no awareness of either? Just rambling about nothing at all? . . . ???