Archie Bunker always used to tell his wife Edith to “Stifle!” when he no longer wanted to hear her speak. In the ongoing debate regarding the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the idea of women being silent in church is often brought up to prove something about my true adherence to Scripture. (It should be noted that I do not claim to be the perfect representation of Christian living, but only that I don’t try to twist Scripture to justify my failures.)
The argument is that since Paul speaks of women being silent in churches, that it shows that change has come to the Body of Christ and thus, such change can and/or has also come regarding the Church’s position on homosexual behavior. Well, I had never spent much time looking at those verses that claim that women stifle themselves in church, but considering the choir in mine, that wouldn’t be a good thing. In addition, I had always felt that there was much more to the story but that there were far more important concerns.
Since the argument has come up again, and by a particular visitor who relies on it greatly, I have begun to research the issue and among the many sites I’ve visited in this quest, this one explains the issue in a manner that matches what I had basically felt from my own Biblical study. I doubt it will suffice for the visitor in question, but it is a sensible and logical explanation nonetheless.
The site from which it comes, “The Refiner’s Fire” is an interesting site I intend to examine further, but whether or not one agrees with what they say, I don’t think they are off base at all regarding the issue at hand. As I’ve said, I’ve visited several other sites and have found pretty much the same thing. I just like the way it’s laid out at this site.
"Thou shalt not engage in polygamy."Leviticus 18:………… oops, it's not there."When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God."Leviticus 19:9; now that is most definitely there. Marshall, you keeping this law?Or, how about Leviticus 19: 20? "If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. 21 The man, however, must bring a ram…"Or, say, Leviticus 19: 27?"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."By the way, I ride the train with folks who keep this commandment along with your prohibition on gay sex.I hope you are saving yourself from judgment and not cutting your hair along with refraining from homosexual activity.Marshall, you have any tatoos? For your soul's sake, I certainly hope not.Leviticus 19: 28.____________I do question your "ability to read and understand" scripture because of the way you hop and skip through it, paying attention only to the things you want to pay attention to, ignoring the very words of God Himself in your "ambiguous, double-talk" journey through Holy Writ.You are far from impressing. You depressing Him.
1 Timothy l: 3-11 Feodor and E.R., stop swerving away from sound teaching of the Word. mom2
Bless you, mom2. That's all I have for you. I respect you, despite your occasional meanness. 🙂
Galatians 3, mom2, which tells you by the end of it that there is no distinction between the gay and straight person.
By the way, you and Marshall are the subject of 1 Timothy 1:6 & 7.
If meanness is telling someone to read the scripture, what are you and Feodor guilty of with all your tasteless accusations that you make against people disagreeing with you? I have a bit more hope for you E.R. than I do Feodor because you loved your precious Mother. Feodor seems to only love himself. mom2
Mom2, I respect you because you are, apparently, judging from your repeated assertions, you are my elder — but mostly because, as far as I can tell based on what you've written around here, your Christianity is based on faith in Christ alone. You seem to *want* and hope people behave certain ways, but your faith is based on Christ's work, not your own.MA's faith, based on what I've seen of his writings, is based on himself — his ability to "accept" salvation, or, his ability to live up to others expectations, or his ability to understand Scripture, or — or, God only knows what.But! THIS, brethren and sistren, is what Jesus was talking about when he said that every damned jot and tittle of the law would be upheld, or "down to the last pen stroke" as some are fond of saying! HE IS THE FULFILLMENT OG THE LAW! FAIYJ IM HIM IS FAITH IN HIS FULFILMENT OF THE LAW!"Does the Law disagree with God's promises? No, it doesn't! If any law could give life to us, we could become acceptable to God by obeying that law. But the Scriptures say that sin controls everyone, so that God's promises will be for anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ."What part of that is unclear? Yet y'all dare attempt to supercede Paul, and Paul's understanding of Jesus's role in salvation, by continuously trying to hold others, and yourselves to LEVITICUS? Jesus Christ! Yes! It's authoritiative — it stands as one of rhe things that we've been saved from! Shut UP about it — lest you would have Jesus crucified again!
I swear, this shootin' at each other with the Gospel gun is the last damned thing Jesus died for!We share one world view — and anyone who does NOT share this view cannot, by any stretch of history, Christian theology, or doctrine, be taken seriously:JESUS. Our world view is JESUS. Clinging to him. Stumbling along with him. Trying our damndest to do what he said to do and live the way he showed us to live. That's IT.That's IT! ANYTHING else is details — and the devil himself is in the details!
Meanness is throwing around things you don't understand, mom2, and when you throw around scripture you show you don't understand it.And even Jesus didn't show love to Pharisees. Whey should I?I think you'll be alright without my love.
MA, you smug s.o.b. You need to get SAVED! Mom2, forgive me, but you need to return to your first love! Christ and him crucified — and unabashed, UNTHINKING love for everyone on this planet — because God loves YOU like you were his last lost sheep! YOU need to get untangled from whatever it is that has led you away from the JOY you once had in Christ! Because the poor substitute you keep pretending makes you happy is so plainly and clearly false and ragged and see-through that I can see through you.
Feodor, For all your education and self absorption, you nor E.R. has much spiritual discernment as far as can be seen by your writings. If you would read 1 Tim. 1:3-8 and seek to learn from scripture, it warns against false prophets and their message. Both of you and several of your buddies have made the gospel try to fit your beliefs and preferences over Christ's teaching. I have no angry or malicious thoughts toward you, I only wish you would love the Lord more than the ways of the world. The Way is narrow and all the promotions of the world will not change the Truth. I have no righteousness in and of myself, only that bestowed upon me through Christ and His atonement which I have accepted, so your accusations against me just roll off. mom2
Mom2, holy cow, you misuse, probably because you don't actually understand, the word "discernment" — if by it you mean, "Read the Bible, do what it says, and be quiet"! Lordy! As if the Bible were the fourth person of of the Trinity! Which would make for a quadrophonic God, actually.
I mean: It takes NO insight and NO judgment — both requirements of one who has discernment! — to just trot out scriptures, point to them and say, "See?"
The Way is for damn sure narrow, I'll agree to that. And getting narrower.
E.R., Your diplomas will mean nothing in eternity and if you do not understand discernment, you might check up on some things. When we receive Christ as our Saviour, the Holy Spirit comes and abides in us. The Holy Spirit is providing our discernment. We have nothing unless we yield ourselves to Christ. Yielding means obedience. Obedience will change us from the inside out and it will show. You, Feodor and the crew that post on your site toss out accusations and it makes me wonder if you read your own posts. Try a little love for me and Marshall and some of us that disagree with you. mom2
Tell me, dear, how I can agree with every word of this, yet you banish me to the "needs prayin' for" section? "When we receive Christ as our Saviour, the Holy Spirit comes and abides in us. The Holy Spirit is providing our discernment. We have nothing unless we yield ourselves to Christ. Yielding means obedience. Obedience will change us from the inside out and it will show."Amen! Absolutely! Yes! So, now, tell me why we are fighting over BULLSHIT that doesn't matter? Honestly. We disagree on the meaning of Scripture and what the Bible is, and is supposed to be to us right now. WHICH MEAN NOTHING in light of the Grace of God and the shadow of the Cross!Why did you even inject yourselof into this discussion, mom2? You lead no one here because you have nothing to offer that we don't already have. You just can't stand the fact that there are Christians DIFFERENT from YOU!Enough. Done with you again now, mom2. Peace. My prayer for you is you unclinch your fists fromm whatever it is you're clinging to — cause from here, it looks like the wood, hay and stubble of religion and tradition. Enough with you.
Read the list of false teachings that were warned against in that small section of scripture in Timothy. That sounds like Feodor's list of protected subjects. Then I wonder where to find that those same issues have been blessed by God. E.R. and Feodor think they have NEW things to add to discussions, but all it amounts to is the same OLD stuff that will save no one. As for putting E.R. on the need to pray for list, we are all there, but we need to at least love brother and sister Christians as well as love the sinners enough to warn them and lead them out. mom2
Again, mom2 puts herself in the camp of "some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm" (1 Timothy 1:6 & 7) for claiming that I would argue with the list from 1 Timothy:8-10:"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me."I have never opposed this list and, in fact, have tried to show how biblical literalists fail to understand the "doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel" because they bind God into a book and lose the sense of love.What is the greatest commandment, mom2; you can at the very least cite that. And do you not see it here in 1 Timothy also? vv. 4 & 5: "… so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."It is Marshall with his anachronistic and anxious misuse of Leviticus (myths and endless genealogies) who wants to be a teacher of the law but doesn't know what he is talking about.And now you join him by lying about me and what I argue for.You are nothing but a windbag, a clanging symbol, without love, without a vision of the Gospel, with only a dry inheritance of something given to you without understanding.
You are nothing but a windbag, a clanging symbol, without love, without a vision of the Gospel, with only a dry inheritance of something given to you without understanding.>>AND……that statement makes you a shining example of love? mom2
Not for you. But, as I said, you are not in need of my love.You're the one who claims being full of righteousness not your own.That surely isn't in evidence.
Read Galatians, mom2. See what Paul does with law there. And then read the farewell discourse of Jesus in the Gospel of John.That would be my prescription of love, if any.
Feodor, No time to comment now, so don't start the "running away" junk. mom2
mom2, I think that if you count the number of my comments here at Marshalls, the inordinate amount of time I spend in correcting the misapprehensions, bad theology, and corrupt doctrine, along my stubborn perseverance in comebacks, you could not, with any honesty, predict any "running away."It's my experience that, if we were to be compared, you would take that title.
God, I sound like Bubba there.Where is Bubba, anyway?
I wasn't talking about you (Feodor) running away. I get accused when I drop off the scene.I have some more scriptures for you to read and if we are not to look to the inspired Word of God, then I will refuse to accept just the words of an intellect.These scriptures show reasons for Christians to pursue a Godly lifestyle. If one has accepted Christ as Savior, but gives no thought as to how to live and walk; Where is our love? The gift of Grace is offered freely, but came at a great cost and to act disrespectful after receiving such a blessing reflects poorly upon the receiver.1 Peter 2:11-121 John 2: 15-16Colossians 3: 5-8-9Galatians 5: 241 Peter 1: 13-25Just a few for starters.I believe in salvation through Grace, but if there is no good fruit after salvation; something is wrong. Sanctification is a daily walk of yielding. mom2
mom2,It concerns me that you carve up scripture into too little pieces. It concerns me for reasons that have to do understanding the full scope of an epistle, and therefore understanding more of what the pieces you like are truly saying.You recommend to me 1 Peter 2:11-12. Set in the context of Peter making recommendations to a Jewish community set within a Gentile world, I confess that it is not exactly clear how we are to interpret it for ourselves. I certainly would agree that, as Christians, we should conduct ourselves honorably in the world according to, at the very least, the best ethics of our society, say, like outlawing hate crimes and offering civil rights to all who may be victimized. This kind of agreement seems to me to be very much in line with Peter's intentions here. And on those lines, I wonder how you are at following verse 13 and 14. I especially wonder how you will be should your state pass legislation approving gay marriage.Beyond this simple extension, I would have to say that I, myself, cannot abide by verse 18 and ff. I find it horrifically out of date with how we have understood the unGodliness of slavery for almost two hundred years and more now. Peter, of course, could not have known of the ways in which western civilization gave birth to the notion of human rights in the enlightenment, which, of course, inexorably led to the principles on which our nation is founded. And Peter could not have known how long it would take us to apply those principles to every human being, first to black men in theory (though not in practice), then to women. And soon to gay and lesbian people in every state.Yes, let's conduct ourselves honorably and follow the best principles of our nation, our laws, and our ever increasing understanding of human rights.
Now, 1 John 2: 15-16 give beautiful evidence for a more socialist economy, since capitalism loves "the things that are in the world… the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride in riches.:And, I should think, it is most pertinent to the current debate on health care. One's body is one's temple and we as a society should not have our eyes on protecting rich corporations but helping those who cannot afford health care for their "temple" which God made.Surely the fact that the world is passing away ought to loosen the grip of any Christian on his or her earthly treasure if there are hungry, poor, orphaned children of God still among us, and even increasing now.I like this part of 1 John very much.
Colossians 3: 5-8-9 again speaks of greed and sexual depravity together, very much the popular appetites of the American consumer.I am particularly drawn to verse 10 for, as I have been trying to tell you for so long now, "renewing ourselves in knowledge" is expected of us by God, and that renewal is difficult work, using the mind and faculties of reason that God endowed us with in order, in the context of faith, to keep thinking. Remaining static is remaining stagnant and new times call for our new selves, not the traditions of the dead long ago.Verse 11 is a great summing up of how I think of the heavenly community: "no Greeek, no Jew, no circumcision nor uncircumcision, no barbarian, Scythian, slave or free," black or white, hispanic or asian, male or female, gay or straight, "Christ is all and in all."
Galatians 5: 24, yeah that's pretty good, but not quite like 5:14.___________1 Peter 1: 13-25You have saved the best for last, in many ways. But it's odd that you would be drawn here, since it's message and that of 2 Peter 1 as well is far from a life of yielding. Peter would not have us yield; he, it seems to me, would have us be bold and confident that we can, indeed be holy, purified and enter into genuine love. As 2 Peter 1 would have it, it is even so great a life set for us that Christ's "divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness… that through them [we] may become participants of the divine nature."Man, NOW THAT'S SOMETHING!But these passages wear away at your clinging to that leather book in your lap. For the power comes from Christ, not the Bible. He has already brought us the grace by which can be conformed to holiness. The Bible did not give this to us. The Bible, even here in 1 Peter, is itself saying to look to Christ, not itself."'… the word of the Lord endures forever.' That word is the good news that was announced to you."Peter is writing this to some Jewish community. Long before the New Testament was put together. Before even all the books were written. For here it is in 1 Peter. And 2 Peter still wasn't yet written.But they don't need the New Testament to live a holy life. They need Christ's power, the living Christ's power by which "he has given us… his precious and very great promises."It is still thus. Christ is the one who has so completed what was begun in creation — the blessed ability of human nature to be in com-union with God — that we are actually able to co-participate in the divine nature.Think of that!And you know what? I've seen it in some very deep Christian lives, this ability to participate along with God's own goodness.And you know what? Not a few of them are gay.
Amens and amens, Feodor.Concerns me greatly when people are so much more concerned that Christians NOT do certain things than that they DO certain things.We are not called to stop. We are called to start.
The irony of course being that you guys are doing to us the exact same thing that you accuse us of doing. The difference is that you guys have no really solid basis for believing what you do. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that any time you guys DO use Scripture, it is to use against itself, to try to support your desire to make good what Scripture has said is evil and never said otherwise. Not a good plan as far as reasonable people can see.On a side note, I will say for ER, that any credibility you might have had is now out the window after agreeing with the false priest, Feodor. He's been unable to even connect his own dots, much less "correct misrepresentations" he believes have been made. Apparently, you've yet to begin your seminary studies.Now I have to go over the various comments over the last three days. I've only skimmed them up until now, though the "smug s.o.b." comment kinda stood out. Seemed totally outa the blue. I would like to commend Mom2 for standing firmly against the drivel.
ER said,"But I can't decide which one it is." I haven't the foggiest notion what the hell you mean. The point is that ALL of the sexual practices are prohibited, and prohibited NOT due to any connection to pagan practices, but by virtue of God's command not to do them. The ONLY sexual practice sanctioned by God is that which takes place between a husband and his wife. Those listed in the prohibitions of Lev 18 must ALL be viewed equally if engaged in with the same spirit as the supported homosex behaviors, that they are NOT sinful if apart from pagan ritual and done in a loving, committed, monogomous manner. Ths is the consequence of the pro-homosex argument. You can't have it both ways.
""Thou shalt not engage in polygamy."Leviticus 18:………… oops, it's not there." You already lost that argument, Feodor. Give it up."Leviticus 19:9; now that is most definitely there. Marshall, you keeping this law?" I'm not a farmer."Or, how about Leviticus 19: 20?" I'm married and do not commit adultery. If I was not married, I would not have sex with any woman.Your attempts to hold me to ritual/purity laws are in vain as I have already blown that tired, desperate argument out of the water long ago. You're so busy trying to pretend a sinful behavior is no longer sinful that you won't take the time to study the why's and wherefor's regarding which of those laws still apply and which don't.That you question my ability to read the plainly revealed Will of God is a personal problem for which you should seek a sound Christian teacher for instruction. You say I "hop and skip" through Scripture picking and choosing what I will honor, yet you have not shown that to be the case at all. NOR have you shown how my own shortcomings, if indeed there are regarding my understanding, means that I'm wrong regarding the sinfulness of engaging in homosexual behavior in any context. This is an important point. I could be wrong on everything else, but that homosexual behavior is sinful is without question and you would only be able to say, "Look at Marshall Art! He's wrong on everything else, so he must be wrong about homosexuality!" Yet, the former doesn't make the latter true at all. It's only a ploy I wouldn't put past you to use. Fortunately, you can't say anything remotely close to that without proving yourself again to be a liar.
"Galatians 3, mom2, which tells you by the end of it that there is no distinction between the gay and straight person." Two problems with this. First, Gal 3 does not say that we are no longer to abide any previously mandated law of behavior. That is, those laws that defined what is good/holy behavior vs bad/sinful behavior have not been wiped away so that we can then do as we please as opposed to what pleases God. This is the typical position of the enablers. With tracts such as Gal 3, the feodopes feel justified in acting on whatever desires move them regardless of the morality of the behaviors motivated by those desires. "Yahoo! We don't have to abide any ancient law anymore! I can say I have faith and do anything I want!"Problem 2 with Feo's argument.Of course the tract doesn't mention anything like "there is neither gay nor straight". What absolute heresy and childish stupidty. But let's assume it's there. One could only assume that there is no difference between the two as long as they are both abiding God's Will for human sexuality. Being straight isn't a "good", so to speak. Certainly there are a lot of whores out there who never indulge in same-sex practices. So one's urges aren't as important as how one deals with them. There is on difference between gay and straight as long as they deal with their urges in a manner pleasing to God. For the homosexual AND the heterosexual, the pleasing manner means chastity until marriage with another of the opposite sex. Period.
ER wrote,"MA's faith, based on what I've seen of his writings, is based on himself — his ability to "accept" salvation, or, his ability to live up to others expectations, or his ability to understand Scripture, or — or, God only knows what." Then you have as poor an ability of understanding plainly written comments as does Feodor and another who will remain nameless here. I have never spoken on what my faith is based. That you could glean anything of the load above from my words is nothing more than projection on your part. All I've been doing is dealing with one or two issues and my position on them. In this case, it's still the issue of homosexuality. Not whether such people are deserving or not of my love and prayers, but whether or not their behavior is sinful. Period. It is. Period. No one has come up with any legitimate reason to suggest otherwise. Period.
"HE IS THE FULFILLMENT OG(sic) THE LAW! FAIYJ(sic) IM(sic) HIM IS FAITH IN HIS FULFILMENT OF THE LAW!" So anything goes?"What part of that is unclear?" Where it supposedly gives any of us justification for deciding for ourselves what is or is not sinful behavior."Yet y'all dare attempt to supercede Paul, and Paul's understanding of Jesus's role in salvation, by continuously trying to hold others, and yourselves to LEVITICUS? Jesus Christ! Yes! It's authoritiative — it stands as one of rhe things that we've been saved from!" Not really. We have been saved from God's wrath for our sinfulness if we accept Christ as our Savior. That doesn't mean we can act as we please, such as using His name in vain. If you want to use that line, it should be understood that we are saved from having to abide those laws perfectly and without backsliding. But those behaviors called sinful are still sinful. Sorry to break it to you.
"JESUS. Our world view is JESUS. Clinging to him. Stumbling along with him. Trying our damndest to do what he said to do and live the way he showed us to live. That's IT." Cut the crap. You use this as a bludgeon far more than we do holding to the words of Scripture. You maintain this ambiguous world view to relieve yourself of having to really say anything substantial that teaches anybody anything about Jesus or what His being our world view really means. Why do you even bother? And then, smugly, like an s.o.b., you dare decry anyone who wishes to flesh it all out in a more focussed, tangible manner.
Feo said,"Meanness is throwing around things you don't understand, mom2, and when you throw around scripture you show you don't understand it." I find Mom's understanding to be far more sensible than that double-talk YOU throw around."And even Jesus didn't show love to Pharisees. Whey should I?" So you're equal to Jesus Christ, now, are ya? Shows you don't understand much at all with an attitude like that.
ER said,"MA, you smug s.o.b. You need to get SAVED!" And the distance between this and my last comment previous to it confirms my belief that it was totally out of the blue. Your X-ray vision fails you if you believe either Mom or myself lacks joy in our faith. I'm positively giddy at the prospect of being used by God to bring you to His Truth and away from your Willem Defoe charicature of our Savior.
"I mean: It takes NO insight and NO judgment — both requirements of one who has discernment! — to just trot out scriptures, point to them and say, "See?"" But it takes both to understand the relevance. Before discernment, however, reading and studying is required. Perhaps at seminary you'll be so encouraged.
Feodor said,"I have never opposed this list and, in fact, have tried to show how biblical literalists fail to understand the "doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel" because they bind God into a book and lose the sense of love." You've opposed the part regarding adultery and perversion. This has been at the heart of most of our discussions and you've yet to explain how you can justify calling sinful behavior "non"sinful. We neither bind God in a book nor lose the sense of love. This is the reaction of those who do not wish to conform to codes of behavior by which we can be something akin to holy. It's like a little kid who says to his mother, "You don't love me", because she forbids certain behaviors. Altogether very childish of the liberal "Christian". You don't even understand the term "literalist" as what we do is not literalism at all, but a proper reading and understanding of what the only source of God's Will revealed to us explains."It is Marshall with his anachronistic and anxious misuse of Leviticus (myths and endless genealogies) who wants to be a teacher of the law but doesn't know what he is talking about." So because it's old, it's no longer useful, proper, God-given? And where do you get this "anxious" nonsense? If I'm anxious, it's only for the sake of those you are leading astray by your heretical interpretations of God's Will as revealed in Scripture. In addition, you have yet to demonstrate that I don't know what I'm talking about or that you do. And then you accuse Mom2 of lying about you. Doubtful to say the least. If there's any lying going on, fool, it's by yourself.
Feodor said,"God, I sound like Bubba there." Two problems here. First, you WISH you sounded like Bubba. He makes sense, you make trouble.Secondly, like the false priest you are, you again use His name in vain. Does your understanding of Galatians 3 include such disrespect for the Creator of all things? And you dare question our understanding.
"It concerns me that you carve up scripture into too little pieces." Like you haven't done that with Galatians."You recommend to me 1 Peter 2:11-12. Set in the context of Peter making recommendations to a Jewish community set within a Gentile world, I confess that it is not exactly clear how we are to interpret it for ourselves." Good gosh! are you stupid! These verses teach us to live according to God's Will and not the whims and desires of worldly things. WE are the aliens and strangers in the world if we consider ourselves citizens of heaven. It has nothing to do with ethics of whatever society we find ourselves. GEEZ! And then you go on to impose your liberal crap, like hate crimes legislation as being at the heart of the verses. GEEZ!!!As for 13 and 14, we are bound by the laws of our country to the extent that they do not stomp on HIS laws. If "gay marriage" were to be instituted (God forgive us were it so), we would be right with Him to work to overturn such abominable legislation that only false priests and Christians would celebrate."…I, myself, cannot abide by verse 18 and ff. I find it horrifically out of date with how we have understood the unGodliness of slavery for almost two hundred years and more now." You can't abide it because as the false intellectual you are, you're too stupid to understand that the verse does not condone slavery in the least. Read it. Study it. It speaks to how we endure harsh conditions. If you suffer for doing good and endure it, this is commendable before God. How galling it is that you pose as a student of the faith!"Peter, of course, could not have known…" Idiot. You really think Peter was concerned with worldly things here? He was clearly teaching us something more than to act according to what might be going on in our world, but instead always act in a "Christian" manner regardless of what befalls us. And then to pretend that he would be so shallow as to make the lame comparison between the unchangable nature of one's race or gender with the totally changable behavior of homosexuals. Liar."Yes, let's conduct ourselves honorably and follow the best principles of our nation, our laws, and our ever increasing understanding of human rights." No. Let us conduct ourselves as God intended and as He taught us by His revealed Word as found in Scripture and our ever increasing understanding of His unchanging Will.
Now you use 1 John 2:15-16 in a most hypocritical way. You pretend it justifies socialism. But you're an idiot and don't see that you are indeed a proponent of that which the verse warns against. You enable the practice of behaviors God forbids and pretend that to accept and love those who refuse to repent of such behavior is what we are taught to do. No. Love them is one thing. But to pretend their sin is not sinful is to love the world and the desire and cravings and lusts the verse warns us against."And, I should think, it is most pertinent to the current debate on health care." No you shouldn't. It only confirms that you're an idiot. There is nothing in Scripture that justifies idiots like you forcing others to cough up dough for the poor. Scripture tells YOU to donate. Take care of what YOU do for the poor. I don't need hypocrites like yourself to tell me when, how much or to whom I should give my excess loot.
"Remaining static is remaining stagnant and new times call for our new selves, not the traditions of the dead long ago." What progressive bullshit and what a perfect example of being in the world! NEW TIMES! What a completely false and stupid priest. We are the same as the ancient Hebrew and those before. The human condition has not changed and the teachings of Scripture are for that human condition, not some supposed change of times to which we should adapt God. You unholy heretic! You really have no freakin' clue just how off the deep end you are in your thinking. How I grieve for your children!Again your understanding is lacking as you again place behavior with state of being with your laughable rendering of verse 11. Being Greek is not moral or immoral. Being a slave is also morally neutral. Engaging in homosexual acts is sinful and immoral, you heretical idiot."Galatians 5: 24, yeah that's pretty good, but not quite like 5:14." Yet you show no love for your neighbor when you accept and tolerate their sinful behavior, and worse, when you chastise other neighbors for having the love you lack when they hold to God's teaching about that sinful behavior. Our love will lead them to a better understanding. Your idea of love will lead them to destruction. Way to love, idiot.
And finally, Feo's understanding of either of Peter's Epistles leaves much to be desired. He doesn't understand that he is the type of person against whom Peter warns, one who falsely teaches that which leads to the rejection of restraint and self-control. He thinks he understands to whom Peter writes and believes that what he tells them is some ambiguous progressive claptrap that he himself imparts whenever he gets the chance. "They need Christ's power to live a holy life"? What the hell does THAT mean? Apparently that means to you that people are holy even when engaging without remorse or guilt or shame behaviors that are sinful because THEY'VE GOT CHRIST'S POWER! You're a fool's fool. which leads to ER's "amens". How foolish indeed to ditto such drivel.
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman…"is a ritual/purity law, embedded in all the other you don't slavishly follow.Picking this one out of the others is dishonest.
You just keep stubbing your toe on how you honeycomb what you claim to be God's handwriting with pieces you take and pieces you leave behind.
"The irony of course being that you guys are doing to us the exact same thing that you accuse us of doing. The difference is that you guys have no really solid basis for believing what you do."Your ingraciousness, of course, not realizing that we do not demand that your take on scripture has to be ours. I'll present my take, contextualized as it is in the take of a significant portion of historic Christianity. But it is only one approach among the kaleidoscopic takes. In fact, these are only preliminary efforts on my part.But I am in no way convinced that the way I just presented a reading of scripture is the only – or even the best way – to read scripture.That is hubris that is unChristian and a misapprehension of the role of scripture in the community and the glory of the godhead.So, no, we do not do what you do when you claim – despite being a temporal – limited human being, to have a absolute claim on Truth.The irony is contained within your own self-defeating pride.
"the why's and wherefor's regarding which of those laws still apply and which don't…"Like I said, an approach to scripture that hops and skips for reasons that are constructed out of nothing but what you need the Bible to say.