Who doesn't love Fred Phelps?

[Guest sek69]

Yeah my comment was meant to be a shot at people who use the Bible as rationale for their homophobia. 9 times out of 10 they pull the Leviticus quote out as their main backing that God Hates Fags, yet if you point out the other things Leviticus frowns upon they backtrack with the quickness to explain that pretty much none of the Old Testament law applies anymore except for the gay bashing part.

[Guest SP-1]

Yeah my comment was meant to be a shot at people who use the Bible as rationale for their homophobia. 9 times out of 10 they pull the Leviticus quote out as their main backing that God Hates Fags, yet if you point out the other things Leviticus frowns upon they backtrack with the quickness to explain that pretty much none of the Old Testament law applies anymore except for the gay bashing part.

Special K:

 

Excellent. I look forward to that conversation. I'll post again when I'm settled in back in my University town, in a day or two. PM me if I don't come back here after a couple days. You seem like you actually want to discuss it in a civil manner, which I'm all about. As a very quick response, the Old Testament gives evidence for people going somewhere in the afterlife, it just isn't really named. The prophet Elijah, I believe, didn't actually die but was instead taken up to a place that was not earthly. COnsidering it was never works, but faith in a work that God had promised to do that was saving in the first place, Jesus is still the center of the belief system, even if He'd not been named or seen just yet. I, personally, believe that the forefathers and those who truly trusted God and didn't actively pursue sinful lives certainly went to Heaven. We can discuss this further, along with the other issues you raised, once I'm settled in. This is mostly because my Bibles are packed away. Sek's answer I can handle from general knowledge right now.

 

Sek:

 

Alot of the Levitical law was pushed aside. But some of it still stands. Alot of the intricate, ceremonial things aren't such a big deal anymore, and some of the stuff was a cultural representation of a spiritual matter that Jesus would later clarify or change due to the work accomplished on the Cross. However, the continued view of homosexuality as a sin is qualified by the Levitical passage speaking on it as a social, behavioral sin, and by Paul's continued teaching on it in the New Testament. It's still upheld as a sin. It was never a ceremonial or cultural matter that could be discontinued or changed after the work of the Cross was complete.

 

Some of the law was like that. It was actions or practices that looked forward to the work of the Messiah, and could thus be discontinued or altered after that work was accomplished here. Some of it was cultural in nature, still tied symbolically to looking forward to a salvation that God would provide. But some of it was a base explanation of behavioral attitudes and actions that were displeasing to God. Homosexuality is one of those. And after the Cross, after the alterations and changes, it was still sin, and still displeasing to God. Given that God's view of it never changed and it was defined as sin in both Testaments, I have to conclude that it's a practice and lifestyle that is wrong and sinful.

 

However: The age of ostracising sinners came to an end with the Ressurection and the Church. Now, let's keep in mind that ostracising and discipline are two different things. In the Old Testaments, the punishment for sin was severe because, well, sin is severe. Sin is that despicable in and of itself. That's the whole problem in the first place. Even an ounce of sin is so despicable that it demands death from a perfect and just God. Is God loving? Absolutely. But he is also the singular authority able to truly define justice, and that cannot be ignored. He should have wiped us out at Adam. However, His loving side and His just side met in the middle (and why not: He's perfect and therefore capable of a perfect and balanced compromise between his difinitive senses) and He had a plan that both solved the problem of Sin and respected the Free Will that He created us with. That is the proper understanding of sin that so many lack, and thus end up not understanding God and His reactions to things.

 

Sorry. Tangent, but a neccessary backstep to clarify the base. Now: we Christians are instructed in the New Testament in how to govern ourselves as a culture. God, through the Apostles, founded the church and set up how things operate. Repentance is key. If you aren't living in repentance of your sin, then you show no evidence of having truly trusted Christ. Trying to accept what He did while continuing to actively pursue a sinful lifestyle is a slap in the face to the whole thing. Slipping up every now and then is human nature as long as we're here. Confess it, don't beat yourself up, and move on in repentance. And there is discipline for those posing within the Church. Not permanent, but sometimes if someone is claiming to be a Christian yet refusing to turn from their sin, it is neccessary to close the doors to them until such a time as they do repent. This is not only for homosexuals, but for most any situation where this happens. Frankly, I don't think it happens enough in the modern church. Too many people come and pose on Sunday mornings and clog up the works and nothing gets done. Churches choke out and never make a difference in their community because truly changed people have no outlet because their home church is clogged up. HOWEVER, the balance to this is the readily available grace and HELP for the struggling person when they truly come and seek help and support to live in repentance. This should always be the case in a discipline situation.

 

Refusing to repent denies and chokes out the work of Christ in you. And that's your own choice which God gave us the ability to make. Christians have a leg to stand on in viewing homosexuality as a sin, with teaching from both the Old and New testaments. Forgiveness and understanding are always supposed to be available to people struggling with this or any other sin in their lifestyle, but refusal to deal with it in repentance before God, like any other sin, ends up strangling both your own growth and spiritual maturity, and could create problems within the specific Church body that you are a part of or would be a part of. That is why it is an important issue with the homosexual lifestyle, and with sin in general.

 

You say that Christians pick and choose verses to hate. And sometimes, sadly, you are right. But the Bible must be taken as a whole work. While in general terms, I hope you see that, for me at least, I've considered the issue as a whole, across the board. I don't ostracise homosexuals. I don't hate homosexuals. I'm friends with non-Christian homosexuals and we understand and respect one another's stance. We're adults and capable of that. However, if a homosexual wishes to be involved with the church, then the whole teaching of scripture on the subjects of the sin itself, the need for repentance, and church discipline for repetitive, unrepentant sin within the body of beleivers needs to be considered and understood, and grace should always be administered along with this discipline in that particular situation. With non-Christians, grace especially has to be dispensed because scripture teaches that we are Christ's representatives and Christ never shied away from friendship with the sinful members of society -- though he was always clear on where he stood with them as he loved them.

 

That is the way it needs to be handled in the present society as well.

 

*whew*

[Guest sek69]

What stands out is how your reply assumes to know what God's view on homosexuality is based on books written by men. I'm always amused when religious people say "__ pleases God and ___ displeases God" as if they have some insider knowledge.

 

Defining sexuality as a sin makes as much sense as saying being left-handed is a sin. It's just a random occurance in humanity like freckles and red hair. I just don't see how a part of who someone is can be a sin.

[Guest SP-1]

What stands out is how your reply assumes to know what God's view on homosexuality is based on books written by men. I'm always amused when religious people say "__ pleases God and ___ displeases God" as if they have some insider knowledge.

 

Defining sexuality as a sin makes as much sense as saying being left-handed is a sin. It's just a random occurance in humanity like freckles and red hair. I just don't see how a part of who someone is can be a sin.

You're assuming it's a genetic trait. Which isn't proven.

 

The Bible is the authorative Word of God. It's accurate in it's recounting of events (really, prove otherwise -- and not with things that aren't proven, but if you bring a disagreement then bring a true, recorded historical contradiction from a credible source). It was meticulously preserved over time, it doesn't contradict itself (which is remarkable for a book compiled over centuries with different authors), it is a continuous work from beginning to end (again: remarkable considering the timespan of compilation and all the authors involved). Not to mention that, by the standards with which credibility is judged in the study of historical documents (closeness or writing to the events / number of agreeing copies), the New Testament is literally the most trustworthy set of historical documents in existence. Given the way it works, given the way it was compiled, and given the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it is entirely trustworthy as the authoritative Word of God. Jesus treated the Old Testament that way, and it was certainly something that carried over to Paul and the other New Testament writers, as it was written in an unparalleled time of God's direct intervention and work in the world as the church was founded and its guidelines laid down.

 

There's no reason not to trust the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Unless you simply don't want to.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'll throw some stuff out:

 

1.) Matthew has the angel annoucing the birth of Christ to Joseph; in Luke, the angel visits Mary

 

2.) Matthew: Wise Men visit the baby; Herod is having babies killed out of fear of new king of Jews; Joseph dreams of danger and leaves w/ family for Egypt; Herod dies and family settles in Nazareth

 

Luke: Shepherds visit baby; baby presented in temple; family returns to Nazareth; no magi; no baby slaughter

 

3.) Christianity's link to old testament?

 

Ephesians 2: "Abolishing...the law"

 

versus

 

Matthew 5: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law"

 

which leads to problems like:

 

"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

(Exodus 21:23-25)

 

versus

 

"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

(Matthew 5:39)

 

AND

 

"When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said. "

(Numbers 30:2)

 

versus

 

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."

(Matthew 5:33-37)

 

AND

 

Divorce: Moses allowed it (Deuteronomy 24), Jesus didn't (Mark 10).

[Precious Roy 0]

The Bible is the authorative Word of God. It's accurate in it's recounting of events (really, prove otherwise

 

LMFAO

 

Prove that it's the authorative Word of God. Really. Do it.

[Jingus 0]

You really don't want to start this argument here, it went on for pages and pages in the "Bible is literal truth" thread in Hardcore, just look that one up instead of beginning a clone of it.

[iggymcfly 0]

Banquet meals count as food? I bought a bunch of them because they were so cheap and regretted it. Only their CORN DOG dinner was good. And it's one lousy corn dog.

 

I'm sticking with Stouffers or Swansons next time.

Try the chicken pot pies. They're only 50 cents.

[iggymcfly 0]

The Bible is the authorative Word of God. It's accurate in it's recounting of events (really, prove otherwise

 

LMFAO

 

Prove that it's the authorative Word of God. Really. Do it.

Yeah, he wouldn't say that if he saw the 500 page book in HD trying to do that very thing.

[2GOLD 0]

Man, this topic got really boring really quickly.

[Precious Roy 0]

The Bible is the authorative Word of God. It's accurate in it's recounting of events (really, prove otherwise

 

LMFAO

 

Prove that it's the authorative Word of God. Really. Do it.

Yeah, he wouldn't say that if he saw the 500 page book in HD trying to do that very thing.

I'll check it out, but you can't prove or disprove that the bible is the word of god, it's a hollow, meaningless debate. I'll check it for the entertainment value though

[Special K 0]

Since the topic's getting boring, Fred Phelps reminds me of a funny thing I heard on a local sex advice show years ago.

 

A guy calls from Montana and explains in great detail that he and his horse have a very loving relationship, and he doesn't see why they can't get married as a show of lifelong commitment to his horse. Yes they have sex, but they have a deep emotional bond.

The host after this long, calmly-explained (and, of course insane) argument asks if it's a boy horse or a girl horse.

The guy gets ALL pissed off and blusters. "I'M NOT A FAG!"

 

Fred Phelps may be a miserable piece of shit and a con-man. He may take great delight in the misery of others, and even enjoy causing misery in others, but he's goin' to heaven because HE'S NOT A FAG DAMMIT.

 

P.S. I gaurantee you that creepy fucker enjoys some kind of weird sexual practice.