I came across a Salem, Oregon, article from StatesmanJournal.org, in which a Mr. John Moe writes that he questions the definition of homosexuality as a sin by Christians based upon the “Judge not lest ye be judged” nonsense idealism of a world without absolutes. (No, I did not say Jesus is wrong; He condemned hypocritical judgment, not proper judgment, which is elsewhere commanded many times.)
He goes on to say that he is a Bible-rejector, which would have made him look less foolish if he would have just said that rather than trying to sound like he knew what he was talking about concerning the Bible.
Don’t get me wrong, Christians cannot condemn another. However, we can judge others. We can even bar the unrepentant from our church services. However, it is not we who condemn; on the basis of unbelief, people are condemned already.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9,10, NASB)
Elsewhere, the Bible states…
But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. (1 Timothy 1:8-11, NASB)
According to the Bible, homosexuality is just as sinful as murdering, kidnapping, lying, being immoral, swindling, coveting, and “whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.”
That is the law, and those are sins. We’ve all committed sins: Have you ever told a lie? What does that make you? Have you ever looked upon another person with lust? Jesus said that whoever does that commits adultery in his or her hearts, so what does that make you if you’ve looked with lust? Have you kept God first in your life at all times? Have you been 100% respectful of your parents and any authorities over you?
Would you be innocent or guilty before God when you stand before Him? Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins, as a sacrifice in your place. He bore the punishment so that you would not have to bear it for an eternity in Hell. And all He asks is that you trust Him as you would a parachute in a plane. You put the parachute on… Put on the Lord Jesus Christ. Embrace Him as Savior and trust in Him completely for your salvation and your soul. Know that all your good works done on your own cannot save you; they are but filthy rags to God. Imagine how bad our sins must be.
One of the comments posted on the article linked to above states that a crime or sin by definition have a victim. Another Bible denier making a fool of himself. The Bible declares that sin is transgression of the law. God never said, “Sin is what hurts another.” However, the commenter was correct: Sin always has a victim, and it is you. Every sin you commit is another nail in your sentence. Embrace the Christ and repent of your sins while there is still time.
You know not what a day may bring… Today may have brought your last chance to be saved. Embrace it.
judge not lest thee be judged. do unto others as they would have them do unto you.
let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.
i find it quite interesting that all the anti gay stuff comes from misreadings of the old testament (they were taling about castrated men turned into women) and paul who NEVER MET JESUS EXCEPT IN VISIONS LONG AFTER HE WAS DEAD AND HIJACKED CHISTIANITY and NEGATED AND THE TEACHINGS OF PETER WHO HE HAD NO USE FOR BECAUSE OF THE TEACHINGS OF PETER WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED JEWISH LAWS.. JESUS FOUNDED HIS CHURCH ON PETER, NOT SOME JOHNNY COME LATELY WITH FALSE CLAIMS LIKE PAUL.
The theology of Paul cast aside everything that Jesus taught and tossed aside everything in the gospels.
Paul was not there, he never met Jesus. All he had were “visions” and evidently in a society that was based on superstision that was good enough. Do you really think any pagan would want to follow Jewish law like the true Christian church as preached by the apostles would require?
Everything Pail wrote was to churches and to tell them how to get rid of people with another point of view by declaring they were sexual sinners.
Paul hated sex. Even between married people. That is why sex is only for procreation and birth control is not allowed by the Catholic church.
Who in their right mind would join a church where sex is not allowed?
It should be noted that you follow a trasnlation of a bible commosioned by a homosexual, and most of what was translated was written many, many years after the death of Jesus.
I could go on and on forever about how mistrasnlation, cultrual bias and just plain grasps for control over other people played a part in the formation of the christian religion, but I know it would be pointless.
The Holy Roman Empire lasted untol 1806. It is considered historically as the “first reich”, it was disovlved by Napolean, the Prussian-led Second Reich forms in 1871). The Habsburg emperors revert to their Austrian title, raising the former archduchy to the status of Austrian Empire, as it still holds almost all its eastern territories. we all know the third reich was Hitler.
there is nothing on this site that does not quote the bible incorrectly. use distorted culteral bias. and a complate lack of history in favor of what you think is the word of God.
Faith is believing what you have no evidence that can ever be proved is true and yet you condemn other people for not behaving or believing the same way you do.
The hallmark of the the most hard core Christians (including Catholics) is an absolute lack of knowledge of both history and science and a claim everything in theology and the bible is true.
Might I suggest you disown all advancements since biblical times in the realms of science and medicine.
According to the bible, God knows everything that is, was and ever shall be. The bible does not have anything about medicine, the wheel, radio, television, electricity or any other scientific advancement, but it does go into great detail on when to stone people to death and how to burn animals as a sacrifice to Him. The stench of a well burnt animal pleases God.
I forgot to mention that magic is real and that women are unclean, and that a boy child is worth more than a girl child and thsat owing slaves is ok and if they do something you don’t like it is acceptable. Acctually stoneing anyone to death that you think breaks God’s laws is acceptable.
Might I suggest that anyone with any medical need just put their faith in God and they will be cured and not put a burden on the overtaxed heathen medical system and just let it go as God’s will.
Seaking treatment is going against God’s plan.
Anyone that revives a dead person is doing nothing but what Jesus did, and since Jesus is God, they are doing nothing but playing God and are surely damned.
A true Christian would never accept any medical attention that is not in the bible. they wou;ld accept their illness as God’s will.
Mr. Leers, thank you for your comment; I appreciate the time you spent writing it, and I will share my response as best as I can.
I’m assuming you were directing this at me, so to answer all three parts in order: I don’t mind being judged by the Bible as I hope to be continually conformed to its teachings in order to be made more like Christ, I would hope others would judge me according to the Bible were I misusing it in a news article or elsewhere as was done in my original post above, and I never cast any stones so I don’t see how it is relevant.
Really? What verse says that? Clearly, if we’re misreading the Old Testament and it really doesn’t say that it is an abomination for man to lie with man, then how should that verse be read so that it refers to “castrated men turned into women”?
I also didn’t realize that castration constituted sex changes or that real sex-change operations existed in ancient Israel. What’s your source for that?
God appeared miraculously to numerous people throughout history, notably Moses (upon Sinai), Joshua (the angel of the LORD), the Israelites (the pillar of fire), and so on. That God would appear to Paul is consistent with God’s character and justifies a “meeting” between Paul and God just as meeting Him while on Earth would, such as the original 12 apostles were able to do. Upon no logical, scriptural basis can Paul’s encounter with God be dismissed.
And yet Peter referred to Paul’s writings as Scripture. Isn’t that interesting?
Jesus founded His church upon the truth that He was the Christ, the Son of God, not upon a single man, as the Roman Catholics would have us to believe.
As for the alleged disagreements between Peter and Paul, Peter had a wrong understanding of the relationship between Christians and the Law of Israel. At the Jerusalem council described in Acts 15, the apostles (Peter and Paul included) teach decisively that believers are not subject to the Law of the Jews.
In what way? Nothing Paul taught was contradictory to what Jesus taught, and if you can demonstrate otherwise, I would appreciate it.
Again, God is free to manifest Himself however He chooses. Whether through a burning bush or a vision on the road to Damascus, the appearances are equally valid. God is also capable of breathing out His word through whoever He chooses, whether Moses, Malachi, Matthew, Jude, and yes even Paul. There is no logical, scriptural reason to conclude otherwise, and so far you haven’t given any reason to believe otherwise.
The true Christian church didn’t follow Jewish law, but I suppose you are free to ignore that if you want. If such keeping of the Law was required, can you please explain how we are to sacrifice at a non-existent temple (as well as what those sacrifices accomplish or pre-figure in light of the fact the ultimate sacrifice was already made nearly 2,000 years ago) and how we are to worship under a heirarchy of an order of priests which no longer have a temple to minister within, and how this squares with the fact that in Christ, we have all become priests, able to approach God through Christ without need for other intermediaries.
Who is Pail? Is that who Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch? You would do well to spellcheck your writings, especially when you are making such bold claims–at least spell people’s names properly. :)
Everything Paul wrote was to declare those who had another point of view as being “sexual sinners”?
You must be privy to some apocryphal or pseupigraphical works ascribed to Paul; I can find no such things in the writings of the Bible itself.
Paul hated sex, and yet he said that if we burn for it, we should marry and that spouses should not deprive each other of it except for prayer and fasting?
That doesn’t seem like an “I hate sex!” attitude to me. And if you have beef with the Roman Catholics, take a trip to the Vatican. I don’t speak for or represent them in any way.
Apparently about 1 billion people who are blinded to the lies of the pope and his heirarchy of papist followers.
Umm, I quoted from the New American Standard Bible in my original post. I don’t know of anyone on its committee who was a homosexual. Indeed, one of the critical consultants was Dr. James White, who has written about and debated against homosexuality quite extensively.
If you are referring to the King James Version and following it exclusively, you are invited to go knock on the doors of KJV-Onlyists such as Jack Chick, David Cloud, Terry Watkins, Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman, and others who would more readily defend their preferred version and its commissioning king. For my part, what you say about King James has little bearing on me. Thanks.
As for the writings being penned a few decades after the Ascension, what does it matter? Is the God who created the universe by pure force of will not capable of accurately inspiring writings about events that happened just a few decades ago? Such a God would have to exist within a paperweight sized box of limitation, and it certainly isn’t the God I know and love.
The words are spelled “translation” and “mistranslation.” Such mistakes don’t exactly lend credence to your dismissal of careful and scholarly translations of the Bible.
If the Bible were penned by kings and rulers, the claim that it was written to control people would make sense. However, it was written by a diverse group of people, some of whom (like Moses or Daniel) gave up lofty positions to remain faithful to God. Others began as fishermen and remained quite poor throughout their entire lives.
I’m not quite sure how a translation could be used to control a group of people unless it was intentionally mistranslated to promote a certain viewpoint, but it takes groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses (New Living Translation) or the Roman Catholics (New American Bible) to do something like that. What, for instance, in the New American Standard Bible would constitute a mistranslation used to control people or to gain power? Who exactly does that power and control belong to?
Thanks for the history lesson, but I’m not sure what your point is.
So, everything on my site interprets the Bible correctly? Thanks! :)(I reserve the right to use double-negatives to my advantage.)
Upon further consideration and some help from my friend Coin, you used a triple negative to say, “everything on this site quotes the Bible incorrectly.” How am I misquoting the Bible? Wouldn’t it make more sense for you to say I am misinterpreting the Bible? Whether regarding quotation or interpretation, I welcome any examples of my mistakes in this regard. Otherwise, this is just a baseless accusation which doesn’t really bug me at all. :)
What I think is the word of God is that canonical list of books which make up the Bible. If the word of God is something different than this, please explain what it is and upon what criteria is used to determine what that work is. Thanks.
I, like David (and like God), hate every false way. Truth should be striven for and errors should be contested. Paul exhorted Timothy to always be ready to preach the Bible and to rebuke, reprove, and to correct others with patience and doctrine (2 Timothy 4:2). That is a stated goal of this blog as well.
And the hallmark of those who mock the Bible is a complete lack of understanding of the Bible, as you have demonstrated in your response to this post and other comments you have made on this site.
Understanding history and science is not necessary to understand the Bible and to believe that it is absolutely true. However, if one wants to correct the Bible, some understanding of the Bible is necessary. Such an understanding is not found in your comments here, nor is such a knowledge demonstrated elsewhere online, such as within the so-called “Skeptic’s Annoted Bible” and other sites which spend more time mocking the Bible than attempting to understand with it and dealing with its teachings in a scholarly manner. It is abundantly true what the Bible teachs us about the wisdom of the world being foolishness to God, for in even the most extensive and well-known rebukes of the Bible (i.e., the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible), its accusations are base and foolish.
Why?
Luke the “beloved physician” (Colossians 4:14) would probably take exception to that.
The word “wheel” (or its plural) occurs in the King James Version 48 times. “Chariot” and its plural occur 177 times.
But no, the Bible doesn’t mention the wheel, does it? Thanks for demonstrating what I just mentioned about foolish argumentation.
Why would any of things have been necessary to talk about within the Bible? It was not God’s purpose to set out a crystal ball-esque depiction of the complete future of humanity. The Bible contains what we need to know for salvation, spiritual well-being, and meaningful relation with God.
The nation of Israel had a unique law, one that separated them from the other nations in a way no other law could separate a nation.
It is ironic that those who mock the Bible spend a great deal of time dealing with the details of the law of a nation which has already been fulfilled in Christ and superseded by the Law of Christ, which is love, a love which is very difficult to object to (yet people hate Christ anyway because their deeds are evil [John 3:20]).
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Again, you are demonstrating that those who wish to mock the Bible wish to focus solely on the superceded Law of an ancient nation. They who were subject to the Law didn’t object too much for it; indeed, judging by the circumstances of the New Testament, the greater danger was in taking the letter of the Law far too strictly.
Yet, the Law was given for the good of the Israelites, and if followed, would result in a very blessed life. It is rarely mentioned how humanitarian the Law is. Things like the Year of Jubilee, the instructions to leave the corners and edges of crops be for the poor to gather freely, the sabbatical year of rest, and so on are wondrous and merciful allowances which fail to find their way into modern day liberal thought and action.
It would be great if people didn’t need to rely upon institutions such as the government or insurance for medical care, but the love of money by doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and other medical professionals pretty much prohibits that.
That being said, even Paul instructed Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach infirmities. So we have scriptural example of at least basic medical treatment, and you are ignoring, yet again, the beloved physician, Luke.
Unless you can provide a verse stating such… No it is not against God’s plan.
We can revive dead people? I vote we revive the Founding Fathers so they can set the record straight on the First Amendment so the American Civil Liberties Union would stop corrupting and abusing it.
And how do you square what you say with what Jesus said in Matthew 10:8, where He commanded His apostles to raise the dead?
What biblical reference is that? I can’t seem to find that one… First Epistle of Leers 4:4? Not quite Scripture… :)
Again, thanks for your comments. I enjoyed replying, and since I did so in a generally light-hearted manner, I hope you have read it as such. If you reply, I look forward to it.
Amen Rick.
i just found this when i googled myself. i am still CORRECT. i never before read your reply. i found it to be utter complete nonsense written by someone with no knowledge of history. btw i am catholic, we put the bible together. you might likew to read up on the byzantine empire.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. However, you might want to read up on the history of the Bible. Every book of the Christian Scriptures was in use by the churches years before there was a Roman Catholic Church. The same goes for (obviously) the Hebrew Scriptures. I owe the Roman Catholic Church nothing until someone can point out that I do using the Scriptures alone.