If this is true, then why do Christians care about things such as homosexuality, converting aboriginals, stem cell research?Originally Posted by stella
If this is true, then why do Christians care about things such as homosexuality, converting aboriginals, stem cell research?
Although this was addressed to Stella and hopefully she will reply to it, I would reply because some of them interpret Scripture too narrowly, forgetting that it also advocates animal sacrifice, or they are intolerant of others' cultures and beliefs. And as for their opposition to stem cell research, is that so different from the Christian Scientists who refuse to allow their children to have blood transfusions?
the whole world is involved in these topics you are talking about every country , group (religious or not) & individual have their own stands on these topics ; why should we be the only ones attacked for our opinion according to your statement?
and i said maybe oneday...
The only ones being "attacked" for their opinions are those who seek to impose those opinions on others. They are being attacked for their intolerance rather than their views.
ok then ;how are we imposing our opinions on others?
and i said maybe oneday...
The charge of imposition ought to have been directed specifically at the religious right and their effort, e.g. to have marriage defined in the consitution. Otherwise it's not so much the effort to impose politically so much as the dogmatic assertions of what Christian and other folk "know" about God and what He expects or requires of us, the evidence for which, as they seem to see it, runs like this: It says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist.... ad infinitum.
let me get this straight, are you saying that Christians should not accept the bible's judgment, because that would be really funny.....
BTW you didn't prove that we are judging people.....maybe you want to focus on that more.
and i said maybe oneday...
Well, if they DO accept it should they accept it in toto or just the parts they happen to like? Because, for instance, the Bible advocates animal sacrifice, and it authorized the Israelites to smite the original occupants of Canaan.
As to whether the Bible IS God's word, the only proof you have of that is that it says it is, and a whole lot of people after that who had a vested interest in it have said so as well, interpreting it this way and that.
But I'm done with arguing about that. You are convinced there is a God and that the Bible is His word. I'm not. Neither of us is open to having his or her mind changed.
There are two kinds of judgment: 1.) objectively stating that a particular sentiment/action/belief is wrong; and 2.) deciding that a person who does/believes/feels a certain thing is therefore in some way below you.
We are called to do the first (everyone does this anyway) but we are called to avoid the second (which is the natural tendency of everyone).
OK, you miss the fact that there is EXTREME disconnect between the Mosaic Covenant (that which is outlined in the OT) and the New Covenant under Christ. We no longer sacrifice animals because Christ is our sacrifice-- and He is sufficient for all things, no more is needed. God commanded the Israelites to destroy Canaan because He was after something very different in the OT than in the NT: the Old Testament is God's creation of a political state that was to be His representation on earth. The New Testament is about creating a spiritual people of God, not dependent on an earthly government.
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.--Romans 1:7
Please check this out:
http://vocm.org
I've heard this before, Christians will rail about how sinful homosexuality is (for example), but when it comes to other "abominations to God" they claim this complete "disconnect" between the OT, and the NT, despite what Jesus allegedly said:
Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
"Ideas have consequences, and totally erroneous ideas are likely to have destructive consequences."
Steve Allen
You have conveniently used equivocation (or a lack of understanding) to make this point. The 600 odd prescriptions in the OT are not "the law" per se. Homosexuality was included under the umbrella term "sexual immorality" (as was prostitution, adultery, fornication, beastiality, incest, et al). When Jesus and Paul caution against "sexual immorality," it was understood that that term covered ALL types of sexual misbehavior.
We "rail" about sin because we know that it ultimately leads to self-destruction. Non-believers see "sin" as little more than some sort of mistake, or crime - they don't see it with the same eyes we do - namely, that it has eternal consequences. You'd not have a problem with Christians "railing" about smoking, or heroin use, or prostitution because (I assume) you'd see those as self-destructive; well, sin is WORSE. It leads (ultimately) to death. The Bible lists homosexuality as a sin - so we think its self-destructive. What we "rail" about is not that homosexuality exists but that society seems hell-bent on pushing it as a valid alternative to heterosexual behavior - that's why we're "railing" - just like you might "rail" is you saw TV shows advocating prostitution or drugs as viable alternatives to traditional jobs or medications.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
I notice that Christians don't have a problem with anyone eating shrimp, or calamari, etc., despite the fact that the Bible says it, too, is an abomination:
Lev 11:10 "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you:"
"Ideas have consequences, and totally erroneous ideas are likely to have destructive consequences."
Steve Allen
Leviticus is an old testament book. Hence the food laws fall under the old covenant. The new covenant under Christ essentially repealed these food restrictions as is seen in Acts 10:10:
"10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. "
It's commonly believed that the reason for such food restrictions in the old testament were not merely arbitrary things, but in fact the reason behind forbidding them was because they were likely to be diseased and the medical advancements had not yet been made at that time to deal with such issues. However, during the time of Christ with the advancements of Roman medicine, it became possible for them to be eaten safely.
So, does the word "abomination" simply mean that something is unhealthy?
"Ideas have consequences, and totally erroneous ideas are likely to have destructive consequences."
Steve Allen
I wouldn't presume to tell you what the English translation actually means (since it is just a translation) and I don't know Hebrew or Greek yet so I couldn't tell you my take on the original text, but I can tell you in both languages there are words that have multiple shades of meaning so to speak and this could very well be one of those instances. That's of course not to say that the God looks favorably on any of these things (within the context of the respective covenants of course), but it may very well be the case that one of these shades of meaning is unhealthy. I'm just saying that's a possibility.
Posting Permissions
