President, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world. The “On Faith” panelist is a theologian and ordained minister and has served as pastor and staff minister of several Southern Baptist churches. He holds a Master of Divinity degree and the Doctor of Philosophy (in systematic and historical theology) from Southern Seminary. He did additional study at the St. Meinrad School of Theology and research at Oxford University. He became seminary president after serving as editor of The Christian Index, the oldest of the state papers serving the Southern Baptist Convention. Called "an articulate voice for conservative Christianity at large" by the Chicago Tribune, Mohler's mission is to address contemporary issues from a consistent and explicit Christian worldview. He hosts a daily radio program for the Salem Radio Network and blogs on moral, cultural and theological issues. He also has contributed chapters to several books including Hell Under Fire, Whatever Happened to Truth, Here We Stand: A Call From Confessing Evangelicals and The Coming Evangelical Crisis. He served as General Editor of The Gods of the Age or the God of the Ages: Essays by Carl F. H. Henry.
Close.
R. Albert Mohler Jr.
President, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world. The “On Faith” panelist is a theologian and ordained minister and has served as pastor and staff minister of several Southern Baptist churches.
more »
I can't see the supporting verses for your interpretation regarding sex within marriage plsss.... clarify your context through bible passages. Thanks and God Bless!
I would like to know if this is true to the Southern Baptist religion. My daughter has a friend who is getting married in a Southern Baptist church and when she booked the church she was told nothing of the rules of the "Southern Baptist". Now that she has already paid for the church and ordered her invitations she is all the sudden being told that the "Southern Baptist" faith rules are the following:
1. That if someone is married and is the matron of honor that they cannot stand by the bride, that one of the bridesmaids have to stand in between the matron of honor and bride and then that bridesmaid has to 5-10 feet from the bride.
2. No flash photography is allowed in the church.
3. A two inch questionaire packet was sent asking personal questions about the sex life of the couple to be.
4. Plus now the church doesn't believe that they are going through marriage counseling and they are going to have to do the church counseling now.
If I were a church I would not want this kind of church representing my religion. Is this the kind of church God would want to represent him...I don't think so. It seems to me that the Devil himself is running this church. Please let me know if these rules are true or if the church is in fact lieing.
Still ez money payday loan site omaha strategies shuffling fishhooks tell nokia polyphonic ringtones edge cowboys punto kings free pcs ringtones sprint double jacks game sharp city?
it is out of human weaked ness that peoplle are still questing matters related to sex otherwise the bible is clear on these issues.ephesians 5:21-32,mathew 19;1ff.
Biblical rules regarding sex only apply to Jews and Christians.
For some of us, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, number, gender, position, orifice, and county paperwork are irrelevant to anyone not participating in the act.
"You're reducing Jesus' teachings to watered down bumper sticker wisdom."
Nope. How sad, Trent, that you reject Jesus Christ so publicly.
I didn't reduce anything, Trent, I said that two specific passages are useful as a test. Doesn't mean any of the rest lack value, in any other way.
Please repent of bearing false witness against me, Trent.
Face it, your summary dismissal is just an admission that you cannot disprove the point I made. Jesus said the whole of the law was contained in two statements - and while same-sex love-making violates neither, the condemnation of it, and of homosexuals, violates both.
"If that's all He'd said on those subjects, you might have a point, but the fact is that He said a lot more than that"
And if anything else Jesus said really countered what I've laid out, you'd have posted chapter and verse. Admit it. But you did not, because Jesus didn't give anyone permission to abuse and violate others. Jesus did spend a good deal of time rebuking legalism, and the interpretation 'homosexuality is sin' is a case of legalism. Jesus did rebuke injustice and hypocrisy, and golly gee, injustice and hypocrisy are key components of the condemnation of same-sex lovemaking.
"and He Himself was not tolerant of sin and instructed His followers not to be either."
Homosexual lovemaking is not intrinsically sin, it does not fit the test for sin that Christ gave. Don't you believe Jesus, Trent?
"He accepted those who earnestly sought Him... but not unconditionally."
"The reality is that Jesus Christ gave us tests for interpretation - "love your neighbor as yourself" and "good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit". The condemnation of homosexuals, homosexuality, homosexual love-making, violates both."
You're reducing Jesus' teachings to watered down bumper sticker wisdom. If that's all He'd said on those subjects, you might have a point, but the fact is that He said a lot more than that and He Himself was not tolerant of sin and instructed His followers not to be either. He accepted those who earnestly sought Him... but not unconditionally.
Sorry guys, but the Bible couldn't be clearer on the parameters within which the sexual gift may be enjoyed.
Perhaps too much time has past, and you will not see this repudiation of several of your remarks, no matter.
I found two things interesting. First, that despite your fine talk about not cherry-picking, you promote discrimination against gays and lesbians, by taking out of context passages from Romans 1, which in context refers to idolatry, in order to make it into an excuse to treat homosexuals in a way you would not want to be treated, despite Jesus's definition of the law - Love God with all your self, love your neighbor as yourself. This is the kind of hypocrisy others have brought up.
Second, that you again took a passage of out context, Matthew 7:21-23 - for the theme begins far before verse 21. It starts 'Do not judge others, or you will be judged' - and yet, you judged gay men and lesbians, and use your judgement as an excuse to harm them by denying the protections of marriage. You condemn the God-given sexual orientation of GLBTQ people, even though, carrying on from Matthew 7: 1, verse 11 reminds how good the gifts from God are.
Most importantly, you skipped over the set up to the very verses you did post, verses 15-20:
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
What fruit does 'homosexuality is sin' bear?
The point has been raised for you, and ignored by you, of the terrible destruction that the condemnation of homosexuality inflicts on gays and lesbians, their families and friends. The condemnation you excuse with verses from Romans 1 taken out of context is a construct of guesses and prejudice that bears nothing but evil fruit.
Jesus was very clear - bad fruit, bad tree. The condemnation you and Dr. Mohler spread destroys other people. It drives some heterosexuals, primarily conservative christian men, to kill, beat and maim others. It drives GLBTQ teens to such despair that many take their own lives rather than live as 'abominations' as some here have called us. It drives some into fake, painful, sham marriages. There are other points of religious doctrine that have done so much damage.
This belief also inspires conservative Christians to lie and slander their fellow human beings, and to create injustice, to persecute, harass, defame, cheat and rob gay and lesbian people. When the Nazi concentration camps were liberated, the Jews were released, but because of the heresy 'homosexuality is sin', many of the surviving gay men and lesbians in the camps were sent on to prison.
Let's not forget for a moment that promoting anti-gay prejudice has been extremely lucractive for conservative christians. Millions are made every year by conservative Christian evangelicals extorting "donations" with fabricated threats of a 'homosexual agenda'.
"homosexuality/homosexuals acts are sin" is an evil tree that bears evil fruit. And Jesus was clear, that bearing evil fruit - such as destroying other people's lives, is the mark of a false prophet.
Or a false ambassador. And then Christ reminds those who think the are his prophets and amabassadors:
- "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"
By the way, lawlessness is a very interesting translation choice. A far more accurate one, though challenging for conservative Christians, is 'workers of inequality'.
The reality is that Jesus Christ gave us tests for interpretation - "love your neighbor as yourself" and "good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit". The condemnation of homosexuals, homosexuality, homosexual love-making, violates both.
There comes a point when the creation of justifications for creating and sustaining injustice, as conservative christians are doing regarding homosexuality, goes beyond mere disobediance of Jesus Christ, to deliberate and purposeful rejection of Christ.
The fundamental flaw in Mohler's argument is this: he bases his opinions on much manipulated, changed, altered and usually flat out fabricated information.
The four gospels were written at least 60 years after the DEATH of christ. That means that NONE of the writers ever knew him - and that's assuming he existed at all. There is not one direct quote in any of them and there cannot be. To say otherwise is a lie.
If the bible proves anything, it is that humans have behaved in every variety, as they do now, throughout history. That behaviour has always been a thorn in the side of those 'leaders' who attempt by lies and coercion to control. Nothing has changed about how the so-called powerful will use any method to subdue the people they wish to control.
I encourage all of you, believers or not, to read The God Delusion - and that means you too, Mr. Mohler.
To the point of the original post. Sex is a pleasurable biological function, as is eating and similar other body functions, period.
Some people have rich sex lives with one partner; others enjoy rich sex lives with multiple partners over time or at the same time. All of this happens, will always happen and has always happened, regardless of who likes it or who politicises it.
Humans, as biological beings, express themselves in myriad ways but making value judgements about that expression, based on unprovable, historically inaccurate, politically motivated texts is illogical.
Sadly, these 'spiritual leaders' are always outed for the falsehoods they impose and the REAL lives they lead. Exposure is always only a matter of time, because everything they stand for and preach is mythology. In ALL cases, these people have currently or previously, secret lives which, through strident preaching, they attempt to forget.
And please nobody say that the laws of 'god' are immutable: they are absolutely interpretable and manipulatable. Interpretations change all the time and in every generation. Don't think so? Well, you'll notice we no longer burn witches or drown female babies....
Religion is like a drug, a powerful addiction for many people. These people have no self confidence or are lonely.
Many people put religion before their own families, i.e. time away from home, tithe, etc.
Most religions are against dancing, alcohol, premarital sex, etc.
So, why would they not want to ban everything but prayer!
Angie: I'm sorry to hear your review as he can be a nice guy, although he sounded pretty shrill on his show the other day as well. He, Janet Parshall, and most other right-wing fundamentalist Christians are on the ragged edge these days because so many questions are coming out and they can't hide from the truth much longer; the truth that there are too many questions unanswered and too many conflicting facts to believe in their literalist view of the faith and the Bible. This would not be a problem except for the fact that they have bet their eternity on there being only way to Heaven and that way requires that Yeshua went back to God with warts, hairy arms, genitals, and all the rest. If he didn’t beat death, neither can they and that opens up the well-known thought that he was either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.
They are desperate, and it shows by their lack of Christian behavior when questioned, to block serious inquiry into things that might show that Yeshua was a man just like all other men. If his body did not go to Heaven, the right-wingers just lost their faith as they have bet the farm, the whole damn thing, on the fact that Yeshua beat the unbeatable fate we call death. If Yeshua was just a man, even a wise man, even a man that is the source of a whole new way to seek God, then they are also just men and doomed to one life and the oblivion of an earthly death. Needless to say, that scares the hell out of them and as any animal will do when backed into a corner, they have their claws out looking for the prying eyes of inquiry called science and rational thought.
It's hard to act like a Christian when what you believe in is hanging by a thread of metaphysical tradition. They have, unlike some other more advanced Christians, not moved past the Sunday School Superhero Jesus belief and if he falls, then regardless of who he might have been or what he really had to offer humanity, he’s just a dead guy in red underpants who can’t save them from death. Should that be true, he not only isn’t their Lord, he isn’t any good to them at all. That’s the baby, the bathwater, and the pan right off the cliff, and worse still, they did it to themselves and they know it.
Prof. Mohler, I do not imagine that you have time to read all this drivel, and I hope that you do not take the time, but in the chance that you do, I appreciate the guidance you offer here!
As for RULES IN SEX some of you, I feel have taken this out of context and are looking at rules in a sense of hindering the way you have sex. On the contrary...
HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE OWNED A FISH?
Any goldfish owner from age 3 onward knows that the goldfish needs to stay in its bowl because that is the most healthy environment for it. If the goldfish gets the bright idea that it wants to leave the bowl to see what is out there, it finds out too late that its master knew what was best for it and gave it BOUNDARIES out of love.
As someone brilliantly pointed out earlier, and expounded on Dr. Mohler's point, we humans have the potential to be more than animals. As the old cliche' goes, with power comes responsibility. We have the ability to be great, as we are the only thing in creation that follows the form of God. You do not see even our closest relatives in the animal kingdom penning poetry, art, music, nor truly understanding love or commitment. They follow instincts. God has given us a gift of sex... as a man and a married Christian man, I am all about sex, just ask my wife. The sex that God created, however, is designed to reside within limits. Like the fish out of water, if we choose to defy those limits we cheat ourselves whether we ever realize it or not. I was a virgin on my wedding night as was my wife and it was an awesome experience knowing that we had reserved that highest level of commitment for each other. Sex, as it should, draws us together and there is no one to compare to. This is within the bounds of God's created design. I'm Loving It.
Sex is not something that comes with rules, since we make them up and they change over time, sex is something that comes with implications and consequences. The rules about what is seen as acceptable sexual behavior are all over the place today and have been all across human history. Trying to define legitimate sex as only between married heterosexual persons not only ignores biology, it ignores reality. Between one third and two thirds of Puritan young women were pregnant when they got married (see “Sexual Revolution in Early America”). Being engaged was for a very long time the act required before sleeping with your future spouse to see if you were indeed compatible. This was perfectly acceptable behavior in the past and is so for most today. Humans, unlike some animals, are not and never have been monogamous. We are at best serially monogamous, having many semi-exclusive partners over our lifetimes. The vast majority of human beings who have walked this planet were born to people who were not married.
Viewing sex as a gift suitable for only married people ignores human history. Most people, even most Christians, do not follow "biblical" sexual rules even after they are married, breaking biblical rules simply by having oral or anal sex. Onan was not punished for masturbating but for disobey God's order to impregnate his dead brother's wife. Lot's wife was turned into stone for looking backwards but Lot's daughters seduced him and then had his children, and were not punished in any way. What we do in bed matters but the rules we set are of our own making, even those pointed to in the Bible.
Sex may very well be a gift from God but the uses of it are more complex and varied than what the Bible can account for. It takes two people to tickle, you can’t do it alone, but only one to masturbate, and even male fetuses stroke their penises in utero. Orgasms can be achieved with one, two, or many people, and in ways that many would not find sexual such as being spanked, being bound, roleplaying, or fondling the object of a fetish without any genital contact. God could have easily have made it possible to have an orgasm only when one female and one male came together in reproductive sex, but that is not the case.
We are sexual beings and it is a core part of our nature, which makes it worthy of discussion and understanding. Reproduction rides on sexual passion, not the other way around. There is morality in sex as there is in everything else human because we are also morality-creating animals. Christian sexual morality is one version but it is a version that even most Christians cannot live up to and rarely strive for. On that basis alone, presenting Christian sexual morality as the gold standard means you are standing not on solid ground but on the shifting sands of a limited perspective, that human history and our present-day reality is only too happy to undermine.
By ROSE FRENCH
The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 21, 2007; 4:36 PM
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- The victims' advocates who dogged the Roman Catholic Church over sex abuse by its clergy have now turned their attention to the Southern Baptists, accusing America's largest Protestant denomination of also failing to root out molesters.
The Chicago-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests has started a campaign to call attention to alleged sex abuse committed by Southern Baptist ministers and concealed by churches.
It IS time consuming, I don't expect a response but I'll say my final bit in the hope that you will at least return for a read.
I think the key thing here is your foundationalism argument, something I just got a little introduction to. This seems to be your last stand in arguing for a measuring stick for being able to determine absolute truth from not absolute truth. I'll make this point. I challenge you to find a so called "basic belief" that you can use to support the notion that the bible is absolute truth, and which also, of course, satisifies the criteria for a basic belief:
1)cannot end in infinite regress (how do you know, but how do you know, but how do you know)
2)is NOT a dogmatic stopping point (the bible says so)
3)a circular argument( The bible is absolute truth because it says so).
Finally, the suggestion I get is that the philosphy seems to be outdated. Most philosphical notions are. Philosophy hasn't landed any absolute truth either.
You refer to Sin. "Sin" is not a thing of the "objective" world that you claim your argument and faith is based on.
Your reasoning surrounding the history of the church, individualism in the Christian community, rests again on the notion that there is a "right" (absolute truth) interpretation and all of these Christians are just getting wrong. If only they went to the right college or learned from the right books...they'd get it "right". Utlimately battles are fought over this kind of dismissal of the others interpretation.
One last point to consider Ambassador.
Language (meaning natural language) does not constitute, cannot act as, a container for meaning. Language isn't even a conduit for meaning. It only provides clues or hints about intended meaning. Language only primes the pump of our meaning making mechanism in the mind. If God ever expected to deliver into human minds, the "perfect truth" in his mind, he should have consulted Spock and learned about the Vulcan mind-meld.
Ambassador, It has been fun. I can tell you are an earnest truth seeker. My truth seeking once had me doing what you are doing now, but I moved on. I urge you to not let these challeges get brushed under the rug with supernatural explanations like the holy spirit or "God is a mystery". A truth seeker has integrity and changes his beliefs when those beliefs just don't hold up.
My hats off to both of you, Neal and Ambassador. I look forward to more verbal jousting. It is truly a pleasure when talking to people who can converse as well as you.
Thank you all for the comments and questions. Although we may not agree on many points, I am encouraged that we can have such fruitful conversation. Unfortunately, these types of discussions are very time consuming and I have some other obligations that I must attend to. Please excuse me from the discussion for a while. Neal, I believe the text you were searching for is Romans 13:1-7.
One distinct impression I had while reading the New Testament was the profound difference in tone between the Gospels and the Letters. Christ (rightly) goes around turning over money lender tables in the temple, while Paul says don't rock the boat (essentially).
This intrigued me until I realized that Christ's and Paul's intentions were quite different. Christ was bringing about a human justice revolution that turned social order on its head. He even says "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first."
Paul, however, was building a church. In particular a church that was inoffensive to the Roman authorities, who were in the habit of annihilating any groups they deemed politically subversive. Hence all the text about obeying the authorities, in particular the Roman ones.
Marrying these two extreme perspectives, social revolution and social reification, into one cohesive theology is perhaps a challenge Christians will never be able to achieve to a majority's satisfaction. But I guess that's the whole point of having different denominations.
Very well put Neal,
unfortunatley, people like to make comments. I know I do when I read Revelations. that book is just plain crazy.
I don't read it literally at all. It is obviously a story written to scare Rome and especially it is geared towards the emperor Nero at the time. By the way, did you know 666 comes out to NERO? and not to the devil? Interesting thought there.
Oh well.........keep it coming guys, this conversation is way better than the others
"Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution,whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good."
Slavery in America was a "human institution" until 1863 (date?). The additional "whether" is given as examples of what to be obedient to, not as limiting the prior "every."
If Americans prior to the Emmancipation were to follow Paul's advice we would still have slavery. As well, we would still be under British rule.
The key text, which neither you nor I have quoted yet, is the "as all authority comes from God" line. When Paul says that, he is saying quite clearly that the authority of the master over the slave is endorsed by God. I simply see no other way to read that other than Paul endorsing slavery.
I'm going to try and find that, along with the full accompanying text, so that the context is completely clear.
I am enjoying the philosophical discussion on "idealism" versus empiricism, please keep it up.
Question for Ambassador et al:
Is it not true that people who were left handed were once looked at askance by the church, in fact, being labeled "sinister?" Was not the thinking that left-handedness was a sign of the devil? In light of this lefties were often forced to use their right hands, in essence, to "not act on" their natural tendencies towards left-handedness.
Of course, now we know that handedness develops early and without any volitional component on the part of the individual. And, the church has dropped this silly idea.
I think yu can see where I am going with this, and I do not want to play socratic "gotcha" games in the middle of a discussion amongst intelligent and courteous people, so I'll cut to the chase: It is appearing increasingly likely that sexual preference is also outside of volitional control, and that the exhortation to just "act hetero" or refuse to act on the natural homosexual impulse, is even worse than trying to make lefties be righties.
So, here is the question I guess: At what point do Christians realize that the Bible is simply unjust, incorrect, and (I think) immoral on its stance towards homosexuality? Do you not think that our childrens' children will look back on Chritianity's (et al) stance on homosexuality much as we do its stance on handedness?
Actually what I posted is nowehere near the full extent of the text on Paul's attitude towards slavery. When I read the New Testament last April I was shocked, frankly, at what I found, especially in Paul's letters.
If you read the entire text of what Paul says regarding authority (in three seperate letters no less!) he clearly and explicitely endorses slavery as being sanctioned by God. In one case he follows up his admonitions to slaves with the phrase "as all authority comes from God." I simply see no other way to read this as "God endorses slavery."
My point is that most fundamentalists use the text in Paul's letters to support their discrimination against women and homosexuals, yet at the same time ignore his equally clear text regarding things like slavery.
As well, they completely abandon any pretense of a literal reading of the bible when it comes to The Revelation of John. In that case the creativity and imagination of their interpretations is enviable. Heck, they ought to be teaching New Criticism in some graduate english department.
As I see it, our problems regarding what to make of the New Testament can be phrased as follows: we mistakenly read Paul's Letters normatively as well as descriptively and we mistakenly read the Gospels descriptively as well as normatively.
There is simply no historical evidence that any of the events described in the Gospels ever took place beyond that a man named Jesus with brother James and father Joseph was crucified by Pontius Pilate. This is what I mean by mistakenly reading the Gospels descriptively.
However a normative reading of the Gospels is entirely appropriate and what I consider to the essence of the utility of the bible to Christians. Christ's instructions to us regarding how to live are timeless as well as profound. You don't even have to believe in the resurrection to agree with his teachings.
As for Paul's letters, I consider them to be a selection of writings detailing the early life of the church. Nothing more, nothing less. As an analogy one might imagine a historian selecting some of Bill Gates' early emails to the Microsoft staff. They have great value descriptively, but almost none normatively. Why would any of the rest of us want to follow what Bill Gates says to his early staff? It simply doesn't apply.
One other point before I get off this rant: picking and choosing a line here and a line there from the New Testament and sowing them together into some out of context patchwork is simply bad theology. I wish more Christians would read the New Testament in its entirety, without any "commentary", and draw their own conclusions. After all that's the essence of protestantism isn't it?
Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that I would have to disagree with your assertion that "Paul explicitly endorses slavery." According to Webster's Dictionary, "endorse" means "to express approval or support of, especially publicly." Based on that definition, Paul does not endorse slavery. He does, however, recognize it as a fact of life during the days of his ministry, and therefore includes them in his letters.
1 Corinthians 7:21-23 says, "Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men." It should be very clear that this is not an endorsement of slavery.
In Ephesians 6:5-8, Paul says, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free." Again, Paul is not endorsing slavery. He is simply addressing those who are slaves on how they should live.
In Colossians 3:22-25, Paul says, "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters,not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality." The same explanation applies here as the Ephesians passage. This is not an endorsement of slavery.
Regarding the text that you quoted, Peter did not endorse slavery either. He recognized it as a fact of life during that time and thus addressed slaves on how to live for Christ. If you take the entire text in its entirety, it reads, "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution,whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps." (1 Peter 2:13-21)
Thus, to answer your question, "If you follow Paul's teachings regarding women and homosexuals why not follow his teachings regarding slaves?" I do believe I follow his teachings regarding slaves, based on the discussion in this post. Nowhere does Paul or Peter endorse slavery. Nowhere do they say, "Hey go get some slaves." They are only recognizing the fact of life, and all of their comments are addressed to the slaves themselves, not about the slaves.
I hope this explanation sufficiently answers your question.
Neal:
It seems you may have read that the wrong way, but what do I know, I am sure the Ambassador will be more than happy to alleviate it for you.
Gotta remember though, Paul wasn't a very reliable source anyways. Probably wasn't even Paul who wrote the letters to the Romans.
He probably isn't the best source to believe in when regarding women and homosexuals. The guy was jealous of Mary in the first place, so of course he is going to be bitter to women.
In all this talk about biblical in-errancy you've negelected my post regarding slaves. In three seperate letters Paul explicitely endorses slavery as part of the "all authority comes from God" line. If you follow Paul's teachings regarding women and homosexuals why not follow his teachings regarding slaves? They are very clear and in three seperate letters.
To refresh your memories on one of them:
1st Peter 2 (NIV):
13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
Thank you for your reply. You sound very well-versed in the area of philosophy, and no doubt have attained more knowledge than I on this subject. However, I will attempt to address some of your questions.
You asked, "Why is it that you come to different "interpretations" than your fellow Christians, or why are there so many Christian denominations? These are the "objective" evidence of its relative nature."
This is a very fair and legitimate question. First, let me say that according to the Bible, Christians are still sinful human beings and are not above making mistakes. As I stated earlier and what began my discussion with you, is that just because we get it wrong sometimes does not mean that the Bible is not objective truth (given the definition that I used in an earlier post). Regarding why there are different denominations, the ultimate answer is sin. However, more specifically, I believe the answer is that there is an anti-intellectualism that has taken over the churches. As J.P. Moreland discusses in his book "Love Your God With All Your Mind", three awakenings broke out in the middle 1800's which resulted in an overemphasis "on immediate personal conversion to Christ instead of a studied period of reflection and conviction; emotional, simple, popular preaching instead of intellectually careful and doctrinally precise sermons; and personal feelings and relationship to Christ instead of a deep grasp of the nature of Christian teaching and ideas...what was a problem, however, was the intellectually shallow, theologically illiterate form of Christianity that come to be part of the populist Christian religion that emerged." (See p. 23 of his book). Second, "the emerging anti-intellectualism in the church created a lack of readiness for the widespread intellectual assault on Christianity that reached full force in the late 1800s." Christians began to withdraw from the public debate, and would not engage in discussions such as we are now participating. Thus, without a strong commitment to the doctrines of the faith, many people began to offer new "interpretations", and disagreements arose creating the many different denominations that we have today.
You also said, "You cannot show any equivalent evidence of the so called absolute truth." This comment could lead into the discussion of foundationalism and the idea of properly basic beliefs (not based upon evidence). I will only say that based upon foundationalism, not all objective truth requires evidence.
Thank you for your challenging comments. You have given me much to think about, but I fear we will not come to an "absolute" agreement (sorry for the word-play there) as this discussion has raged on for hundreds of years.
Have a great day, I hope we can talk again sometime.
Thanks for the response. It is true that Jesus taught love. But, it is mistake to believe that he ONLY taught about love. There are many hard teachings of Christ. Consider the following words of Christ as a sampling:
John 8:43-47 - "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
Matthew 7:21-23 - "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"
Matthew 10:32-33 - "So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."
Matthew 11:23-24 - "And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."
Luke 12:49-53 - "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
I do not quote these passages to portray Jesus as a harsh unloving person. But neither should I say nothing when others speak of his teachings as only about love. Jesus Christ was God incarnate and therefore had the same attributes as the Father.
Furthermore, if you hold to the fact that Jesus appeared to Paul on the Damascus road and that He was indeed His messenger, then it follows that you accept Jesus Christ's divinity since this was a supernatural encounter. Hence, if Jesus was the Son of God, don't you think that He had the foreknowledge and foreordination to know what Paul would write? If He was to write and teach something that was not from God, why would Christ select Him as His messenger?
Thanks again for your thought-provoking comments. Have a great day.
Ambassador, the closest thing we have, with regard to our discussion, that can be said to be in the objective world are the bible and brains. My contention is that you are disregarding the brain part. Please do not just dismiss this. This requires some looking into cognitive fields of research (though I think a little common sense seems to go a long way). Why is it that you come to different "interpretations" than you fellow Christians, or why are there so many Christian denominations? These are the "objective" evidence of its relative nature. You cannot show any equivalent evidence of the so called absolute truth.
Also, there is a difference between "absolute" and universal. The fact that we all have brains is a universal, and is the basis for my relativistic argument. This the confusion represented in your last comment. Finally, I do believe that because we all share a very similar nervous system, brain included, there are some views held by humans that appear to be absolute, like avoidance of suffering, but this is a result of the fact that we all share a similar nervous system, not because the truth is "out there" for use to "discover".
You say your measuring stick is "objective truth". Show me. Do you think that mearly making the claim makes it true? Show me. Why can't you and Christiandom agree on this objective truth. If you had a measuring stick, where would the disagreement be? Do we argue over what 5 feet eight inches means?
Thanks again for the comments. See my response to Sledge Hammer above.
Are you familiar with what is known as progressive revelation/dispensationalism? The term dispensation is a way of describing a time period in which God establishes rules by which his relationship between He and his people are governed. Thus, this holds that God revealed more of His plan as time passed. He revealed some to Abraham, He revealed some to Moses, etc. Because of this, it means that you have to pay attention to where you are in that revelation to determine the significance of the promises and commandments because as God revealed more of His plan, it appears to us to have "changed" when in fact, we just learn more about it. (I will speak to the notion about God changing in just a second) Therefore, the Law of Moses is only binding during the period of the Law. When God revealed Christ, the dispensation of the Law was done away with. This does not mean that the Old Testament is any less valid as God's revelation to us, it only means that God has since revealed more of His plan. If I tell you that I have ten dollars in my pocket, but three days later, I tell you that I have a five dollar bill and five ones in my pocket, does that mean that my statement to you three days ago wasn't true or valid? No, it simply means that I have revealed more specifics about the money in my pocket.
You stated, "If something (like the OT) is absolute and sacred then by definition it must not be changeable or voidable." There are two senses in which God does not change. First, there is the ontological immutability of God in which His essential attributes cannot change (such as his holiness, his omnipresence, his omnipotence, etc.) Second, there is the ethical immutability of God in which if God promises something, He is the perfect promise-keeper and is obligated to keep His promise. (See Psalm 102:25-27, Malachi 3:6, and James 1:17) However, there is a sense in which God changes, which is known as relational mutability. This means that God in relation to His people changes. It is a change in His activity towards people due to a change in the ethical situation (such as Moses and the golden calf, Jonah and the city of Nineveh). Once Christ came to fulfill the Law, God's relation to His people changed from one of Law to one of grace as I have described in earlier posts.
Having said all of that, we will most likely still agree to disagree. It's been lively discussion though, that's for sure. Have a great day!
Geez Ambassador, Marco. Jesus is a fictional person based upon a real one, the Egyptian would-be Pharaoh, Amenophis IV. The Amen had a small problem. She was a woman at a time when women were shut out of Pharaohing. She's also the one on who's life Moses is based. So we can say that both Moses and Jesus were a woman with a wife.
Hurt too much to cry? Laugh. It's good for ya.
The Bible is a proved hoax. Small wonder sex, a very natural human urge, is so messed up in the Bible. Try http://www.hoax-buster.org/sex for a little insight. Sex can be dangerous so approach cautiously, especially when it's someone else's sex your approaching.
I realise that Paul was to speak for Christ. But here is a question that you need to ask yourself.
If you were a teacher and taught things a certain way, would you want someone else to teach them another way?
It seems that Jesus taught love, yet Paul threw in a little hate there. If I said something, I'd want to make sure that whomever I chose to relay that message got ir right, and didn't ad-lib.
Maybe I am being callous, I don't know, but I would say that what Paul said is not what Jesus would have wanted. Besides, I thought Mary was the one he took into private council. Maybe she had a better idea of what Jesus wanted than Paul could ever imagine. Paul was jealous.
Thanks for the comments. Concerning homosexuality, you said, "The Bible may say its wrong, but did Jesus say it was wrong?" There's a great deal to discuss from this question, but I'll try to be as brief as possible.
First, we do not have record of Jesus explicitly speaking about homosexuality in the four gospels. However, Jesus said to his disciples in John 16:12-15, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."
If you fast-forward to Acts 2, you will find the coming of the Holy Spirit. Finally, we come to Acts 9:15. In this passage, Jesus says that the Apostle Paul "is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel." Hence, Jesus affirms and commissions the Apostle Paul to act as His representative and on his behalf. The Apostle Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. Hence, since Paul was chosen by Christ to speak on His behalf, Jesus does affirm the teaching of Romans 1 regarding homosexuality.
Thanks, yes that is what I was getting at. If something (like the OT) is absolute and sacred then by definition it must not be changeable or voidable. I can't see how one could have it both ways.
i.e.: "Yes it is the absolute truth and word of God almighty...but, well we don't really have to follow all of it because parts of the NT eliminate the need."
Then the pretzel logic then starts again and we wind up full circle.
Like I said I cannot see how it works both ways.
Are we supposed to kill people who work on the Sabbath? Am I supposed to bring animal sacrifices to the temple? Am I allowed to eat shrimp, it is an "abomination" after all?
Wrap your head around that eating shellfish is an "abomination" yet in the US the seafood industry is a multi-billion dollar enterprise and NOBODY seems to care.
Yet when it come to homosexuals...well we know how that works.
Sorry folks, you can't have it both ways.
P.S., Ambassador, thanks again for the reply, have a great day.
I cannot agree with the ambassador. The Bible may say its wrong, but did Jesus say it was wrong? Did he have a problem with it? I'd like to know specifically, cause I want to look it up. Seems most of the hatred for homosexuals comes from bigoted writers who liked to put their own shortcomings into the Bible. Get back to me on that ambassador, please.
All Comments (147)
I can't see the supporting verses for your interpretation regarding sex within marriage plsss.... clarify your context through bible passages. Thanks and God Bless!
June 28, 2008 3:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 28, 2008 03:42
I would like to know if this is true to the Southern Baptist religion. My daughter has a friend who is getting married in a Southern Baptist church and when she booked the church she was told nothing of the rules of the "Southern Baptist". Now that she has already paid for the church and ordered her invitations she is all the sudden being told that the "Southern Baptist" faith rules are the following:
1. That if someone is married and is the matron of honor that they cannot stand by the bride, that one of the bridesmaids have to stand in between the matron of honor and bride and then that bridesmaid has to 5-10 feet from the bride.
2. No flash photography is allowed in the church.
3. A two inch questionaire packet was sent asking personal questions about the sex life of the couple to be.
4. Plus now the church doesn't believe that they are going through marriage counseling and they are going to have to do the church counseling now.
If I were a church I would not want this kind of church representing my religion. Is this the kind of church God would want to represent him...I don't think so. It seems to me that the Devil himself is running this church. Please let me know if these rules are true or if the church is in fact lieing.
March 26, 2008 4:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 26, 2008 16:51
Still ez money payday loan site omaha strategies shuffling fishhooks tell nokia polyphonic ringtones edge cowboys punto kings free pcs ringtones sprint double jacks game sharp city?
March 11, 2008 6:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 11, 2008 18:40
misdwne rnpsyl xnjhfzb sahbvep exlugsn fsvnrxzhg aejux [URL]http://www.disfgwqex.vcwh.com[/URL] stmco djafxcpqm
January 6, 2008 4:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 6, 2008 04:41
kfavho loxvmnrj krbtgheds jyflzp ousmprt zmbadj cbmuva [URL=http://www.wqelkux.eapu.com]tjuq ltfjzwd[/URL]
January 6, 2008 4:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 6, 2008 04:40
vkxrl ebryjcazw wcyvan yove huztdwso tdcxw ndyser cbelhswzr htsyr
January 6, 2008 4:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 6, 2008 04:39
utxz bgzh rdytqmif zgduve jebfcoyd xefrnpq pezov
January 6, 2008 4:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 6, 2008 04:38
it is out of human weaked ness that peoplle are still questing matters related to sex otherwise the bible is clear on these issues.ephesians 5:21-32,mathew 19;1ff.
August 13, 2007 12:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 13, 2007 12:21
Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.
May 9, 2007 10:18 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2007 10:18
bfhtnxp gwxmjhrav zageyd vwium honmzq seivrybmz duicnzkfp
April 27, 2007 2:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 27, 2007 14:30
bwtf bnyqoj plcs bialpvczn euogalyhm sldzvhxuc cahtiwm http://www.nljy.mojalfpxe.com
April 27, 2007 2:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 27, 2007 14:30
bfhtnxp gwxmjhrav zageyd vwium honmzq seivrybmz duicnzkfp
April 27, 2007 2:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 27, 2007 14:29
Biblical rules regarding sex only apply to Jews and Christians.
For some of us, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, number, gender, position, orifice, and county paperwork are irrelevant to anyone not participating in the act.
April 22, 2007 7:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 19:12
"You're reducing Jesus' teachings to watered down bumper sticker wisdom."
Nope. How sad, Trent, that you reject Jesus Christ so publicly.
I didn't reduce anything, Trent, I said that two specific passages are useful as a test. Doesn't mean any of the rest lack value, in any other way.
Please repent of bearing false witness against me, Trent.
Face it, your summary dismissal is just an admission that you cannot disprove the point I made. Jesus said the whole of the law was contained in two statements - and while same-sex love-making violates neither, the condemnation of it, and of homosexuals, violates both.
"If that's all He'd said on those subjects, you might have a point, but the fact is that He said a lot more than that"
And if anything else Jesus said really countered what I've laid out, you'd have posted chapter and verse. Admit it. But you did not, because Jesus didn't give anyone permission to abuse and violate others. Jesus did spend a good deal of time rebuking legalism, and the interpretation 'homosexuality is sin' is a case of legalism. Jesus did rebuke injustice and hypocrisy, and golly gee, injustice and hypocrisy are key components of the condemnation of same-sex lovemaking.
"and He Himself was not tolerant of sin and instructed His followers not to be either."
Homosexual lovemaking is not intrinsically sin, it does not fit the test for sin that Christ gave. Don't you believe Jesus, Trent?
"He accepted those who earnestly sought Him... but not unconditionally."
Actually, Trent, Jesus did.
April 15, 2007 1:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 15, 2007 13:44
"The reality is that Jesus Christ gave us tests for interpretation - "love your neighbor as yourself" and "good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit". The condemnation of homosexuals, homosexuality, homosexual love-making, violates both."
You're reducing Jesus' teachings to watered down bumper sticker wisdom. If that's all He'd said on those subjects, you might have a point, but the fact is that He said a lot more than that and He Himself was not tolerant of sin and instructed His followers not to be either. He accepted those who earnestly sought Him... but not unconditionally.
Sorry guys, but the Bible couldn't be clearer on the parameters within which the sexual gift may be enjoyed.
April 12, 2007 10:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 12, 2007 22:52
Ambassador
Perhaps too much time has past, and you will not see this repudiation of several of your remarks, no matter.
I found two things interesting. First, that despite your fine talk about not cherry-picking, you promote discrimination against gays and lesbians, by taking out of context passages from Romans 1, which in context refers to idolatry, in order to make it into an excuse to treat homosexuals in a way you would not want to be treated, despite Jesus's definition of the law - Love God with all your self, love your neighbor as yourself. This is the kind of hypocrisy others have brought up.
Second, that you again took a passage of out context, Matthew 7:21-23 - for the theme begins far before verse 21. It starts 'Do not judge others, or you will be judged' - and yet, you judged gay men and lesbians, and use your judgement as an excuse to harm them by denying the protections of marriage. You condemn the God-given sexual orientation of GLBTQ people, even though, carrying on from Matthew 7: 1, verse 11 reminds how good the gifts from God are.
Most importantly, you skipped over the set up to the very verses you did post, verses 15-20:
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
What fruit does 'homosexuality is sin' bear?
The point has been raised for you, and ignored by you, of the terrible destruction that the condemnation of homosexuality inflicts on gays and lesbians, their families and friends. The condemnation you excuse with verses from Romans 1 taken out of context is a construct of guesses and prejudice that bears nothing but evil fruit.
Jesus was very clear - bad fruit, bad tree. The condemnation you and Dr. Mohler spread destroys other people. It drives some heterosexuals, primarily conservative christian men, to kill, beat and maim others. It drives GLBTQ teens to such despair that many take their own lives rather than live as 'abominations' as some here have called us. It drives some into fake, painful, sham marriages. There are other points of religious doctrine that have done so much damage.
This belief also inspires conservative Christians to lie and slander their fellow human beings, and to create injustice, to persecute, harass, defame, cheat and rob gay and lesbian people. When the Nazi concentration camps were liberated, the Jews were released, but because of the heresy 'homosexuality is sin', many of the surviving gay men and lesbians in the camps were sent on to prison.
Let's not forget for a moment that promoting anti-gay prejudice has been extremely lucractive for conservative christians. Millions are made every year by conservative Christian evangelicals extorting "donations" with fabricated threats of a 'homosexual agenda'.
"homosexuality/homosexuals acts are sin" is an evil tree that bears evil fruit. And Jesus was clear, that bearing evil fruit - such as destroying other people's lives, is the mark of a false prophet.
Or a false ambassador. And then Christ reminds those who think the are his prophets and amabassadors:
- "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"
By the way, lawlessness is a very interesting translation choice. A far more accurate one, though challenging for conservative Christians, is 'workers of inequality'.
The reality is that Jesus Christ gave us tests for interpretation - "love your neighbor as yourself" and "good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit". The condemnation of homosexuals, homosexuality, homosexual love-making, violates both.
There comes a point when the creation of justifications for creating and sustaining injustice, as conservative christians are doing regarding homosexuality, goes beyond mere disobediance of Jesus Christ, to deliberate and purposeful rejection of Christ.
April 2, 2007 2:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 2, 2007 02:20
The fundamental flaw in Mohler's argument is this: he bases his opinions on much manipulated, changed, altered and usually flat out fabricated information.
The four gospels were written at least 60 years after the DEATH of christ. That means that NONE of the writers ever knew him - and that's assuming he existed at all. There is not one direct quote in any of them and there cannot be. To say otherwise is a lie.
If the bible proves anything, it is that humans have behaved in every variety, as they do now, throughout history. That behaviour has always been a thorn in the side of those 'leaders' who attempt by lies and coercion to control. Nothing has changed about how the so-called powerful will use any method to subdue the people they wish to control.
I encourage all of you, believers or not, to read The God Delusion - and that means you too, Mr. Mohler.
To the point of the original post. Sex is a pleasurable biological function, as is eating and similar other body functions, period.
Some people have rich sex lives with one partner; others enjoy rich sex lives with multiple partners over time or at the same time. All of this happens, will always happen and has always happened, regardless of who likes it or who politicises it.
Humans, as biological beings, express themselves in myriad ways but making value judgements about that expression, based on unprovable, historically inaccurate, politically motivated texts is illogical.
Sadly, these 'spiritual leaders' are always outed for the falsehoods they impose and the REAL lives they lead. Exposure is always only a matter of time, because everything they stand for and preach is mythology. In ALL cases, these people have currently or previously, secret lives which, through strident preaching, they attempt to forget.
And please nobody say that the laws of 'god' are immutable: they are absolutely interpretable and manipulatable. Interpretations change all the time and in every generation. Don't think so? Well, you'll notice we no longer burn witches or drown female babies....
WriterWriter
www.stupid-files.blogspot.com
March 15, 2007 10:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 15, 2007 10:54
Changing the Tides
see how Islam is being destroyed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfEIGw8NtNA
March 5, 2007 3:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 15:35
Religion is like a drug, a powerful addiction for many people. These people have no self confidence or are lonely.
Many people put religion before their own families, i.e. time away from home, tithe, etc.
Most religions are against dancing, alcohol, premarital sex, etc.
So, why would they not want to ban everything but prayer!
I say ban religion!
March 4, 2007 4:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 16:06
Angie: I'm sorry to hear your review as he can be a nice guy, although he sounded pretty shrill on his show the other day as well. He, Janet Parshall, and most other right-wing fundamentalist Christians are on the ragged edge these days because so many questions are coming out and they can't hide from the truth much longer; the truth that there are too many questions unanswered and too many conflicting facts to believe in their literalist view of the faith and the Bible. This would not be a problem except for the fact that they have bet their eternity on there being only way to Heaven and that way requires that Yeshua went back to God with warts, hairy arms, genitals, and all the rest. If he didn’t beat death, neither can they and that opens up the well-known thought that he was either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.
They are desperate, and it shows by their lack of Christian behavior when questioned, to block serious inquiry into things that might show that Yeshua was a man just like all other men. If his body did not go to Heaven, the right-wingers just lost their faith as they have bet the farm, the whole damn thing, on the fact that Yeshua beat the unbeatable fate we call death. If Yeshua was just a man, even a wise man, even a man that is the source of a whole new way to seek God, then they are also just men and doomed to one life and the oblivion of an earthly death. Needless to say, that scares the hell out of them and as any animal will do when backed into a corner, they have their claws out looking for the prying eyes of inquiry called science and rational thought.
It's hard to act like a Christian when what you believe in is hanging by a thread of metaphysical tradition. They have, unlike some other more advanced Christians, not moved past the Sunday School Superhero Jesus belief and if he falls, then regardless of who he might have been or what he really had to offer humanity, he’s just a dead guy in red underpants who can’t save them from death. Should that be true, he not only isn’t their Lord, he isn’t any good to them at all. That’s the baby, the bathwater, and the pan right off the cliff, and worse still, they did it to themselves and they know it.
February 28, 2007 6:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 18:47
Prof. Mohler, I do not imagine that you have time to read all this drivel, and I hope that you do not take the time, but in the chance that you do, I appreciate the guidance you offer here!
As for RULES IN SEX some of you, I feel have taken this out of context and are looking at rules in a sense of hindering the way you have sex. On the contrary...
HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE OWNED A FISH?
Any goldfish owner from age 3 onward knows that the goldfish needs to stay in its bowl because that is the most healthy environment for it. If the goldfish gets the bright idea that it wants to leave the bowl to see what is out there, it finds out too late that its master knew what was best for it and gave it BOUNDARIES out of love.
As someone brilliantly pointed out earlier, and expounded on Dr. Mohler's point, we humans have the potential to be more than animals. As the old cliche' goes, with power comes responsibility. We have the ability to be great, as we are the only thing in creation that follows the form of God. You do not see even our closest relatives in the animal kingdom penning poetry, art, music, nor truly understanding love or commitment. They follow instincts. God has given us a gift of sex... as a man and a married Christian man, I am all about sex, just ask my wife. The sex that God created, however, is designed to reside within limits. Like the fish out of water, if we choose to defy those limits we cheat ourselves whether we ever realize it or not. I was a virgin on my wedding night as was my wife and it was an awesome experience knowing that we had reserved that highest level of commitment for each other. Sex, as it should, draws us together and there is no one to compare to. This is within the bounds of God's created design. I'm Loving It.
February 27, 2007 9:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 27, 2007 21:14
Caught Mohler on Larry King. What a nasty, rude fellow he is!
Why is it that ***some*** self-professed Christians specialize in being exactly the arrogant ugly pharisees that Jesus condemned?
February 27, 2007 11:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 27, 2007 11:53
Sex is not something that comes with rules, since we make them up and they change over time, sex is something that comes with implications and consequences. The rules about what is seen as acceptable sexual behavior are all over the place today and have been all across human history. Trying to define legitimate sex as only between married heterosexual persons not only ignores biology, it ignores reality. Between one third and two thirds of Puritan young women were pregnant when they got married (see “Sexual Revolution in Early America”). Being engaged was for a very long time the act required before sleeping with your future spouse to see if you were indeed compatible. This was perfectly acceptable behavior in the past and is so for most today. Humans, unlike some animals, are not and never have been monogamous. We are at best serially monogamous, having many semi-exclusive partners over our lifetimes. The vast majority of human beings who have walked this planet were born to people who were not married.
Viewing sex as a gift suitable for only married people ignores human history. Most people, even most Christians, do not follow "biblical" sexual rules even after they are married, breaking biblical rules simply by having oral or anal sex. Onan was not punished for masturbating but for disobey God's order to impregnate his dead brother's wife. Lot's wife was turned into stone for looking backwards but Lot's daughters seduced him and then had his children, and were not punished in any way. What we do in bed matters but the rules we set are of our own making, even those pointed to in the Bible.
Sex may very well be a gift from God but the uses of it are more complex and varied than what the Bible can account for. It takes two people to tickle, you can’t do it alone, but only one to masturbate, and even male fetuses stroke their penises in utero. Orgasms can be achieved with one, two, or many people, and in ways that many would not find sexual such as being spanked, being bound, roleplaying, or fondling the object of a fetish without any genital contact. God could have easily have made it possible to have an orgasm only when one female and one male came together in reproductive sex, but that is not the case.
We are sexual beings and it is a core part of our nature, which makes it worthy of discussion and understanding. Reproduction rides on sexual passion, not the other way around. There is morality in sex as there is in everything else human because we are also morality-creating animals. Christian sexual morality is one version but it is a version that even most Christians cannot live up to and rarely strive for. On that basis alone, presenting Christian sexual morality as the gold standard means you are standing not on solid ground but on the shifting sands of a limited perspective, that human history and our present-day reality is only too happy to undermine.
February 23, 2007 6:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 23, 2007 18:14
As for that 'they are Catholic child rapists not Christians' remark:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/21/AR2007022101316.html?referrer=emailarticle
By ROSE FRENCH
The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 21, 2007; 4:36 PM
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- The victims' advocates who dogged the Roman Catholic Church over sex abuse by its clergy have now turned their attention to the Southern Baptists, accusing America's largest Protestant denomination of also failing to root out molesters.
The Chicago-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests has started a campaign to call attention to alleged sex abuse committed by Southern Baptist ministers and concealed by churches.
February 22, 2007 5:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 22, 2007 05:47
Ambasador:
It IS time consuming, I don't expect a response but I'll say my final bit in the hope that you will at least return for a read.
I think the key thing here is your foundationalism argument, something I just got a little introduction to. This seems to be your last stand in arguing for a measuring stick for being able to determine absolute truth from not absolute truth. I'll make this point. I challenge you to find a so called "basic belief" that you can use to support the notion that the bible is absolute truth, and which also, of course, satisifies the criteria for a basic belief:
1)cannot end in infinite regress (how do you know, but how do you know, but how do you know)
2)is NOT a dogmatic stopping point (the bible says so)
3)a circular argument( The bible is absolute truth because it says so).
Finally, the suggestion I get is that the philosphy seems to be outdated. Most philosphical notions are. Philosophy hasn't landed any absolute truth either.
You refer to Sin. "Sin" is not a thing of the "objective" world that you claim your argument and faith is based on.
Your reasoning surrounding the history of the church, individualism in the Christian community, rests again on the notion that there is a "right" (absolute truth) interpretation and all of these Christians are just getting wrong. If only they went to the right college or learned from the right books...they'd get it "right". Utlimately battles are fought over this kind of dismissal of the others interpretation.
One last point to consider Ambassador.
Language (meaning natural language) does not constitute, cannot act as, a container for meaning. Language isn't even a conduit for meaning. It only provides clues or hints about intended meaning. Language only primes the pump of our meaning making mechanism in the mind. If God ever expected to deliver into human minds, the "perfect truth" in his mind, he should have consulted Spock and learned about the Vulcan mind-meld.
Ambassador, It has been fun. I can tell you are an earnest truth seeker. My truth seeking once had me doing what you are doing now, but I moved on. I urge you to not let these challeges get brushed under the rug with supernatural explanations like the holy spirit or "God is a mystery". A truth seeker has integrity and changes his beliefs when those beliefs just don't hold up.
February 22, 2007 2:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 22, 2007 02:38
My hats off to both of you, Neal and Ambassador. I look forward to more verbal jousting. It is truly a pleasure when talking to people who can converse as well as you.
February 21, 2007 3:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 15:56
Ambassador:
I most certainly feel likewise!! It has been a pleasure indeed!
Peace be with you!
February 21, 2007 2:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 14:59
Neal et al.,
Thank you all for the comments and questions. Although we may not agree on many points, I am encouraged that we can have such fruitful conversation. Unfortunately, these types of discussions are very time consuming and I have some other obligations that I must attend to. Please excuse me from the discussion for a while. Neal, I believe the text you were searching for is Romans 13:1-7.
Have a great day everyone!
February 21, 2007 2:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 14:52
Well said Neal, well said.
February 21, 2007 2:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 14:42
One distinct impression I had while reading the New Testament was the profound difference in tone between the Gospels and the Letters. Christ (rightly) goes around turning over money lender tables in the temple, while Paul says don't rock the boat (essentially).
This intrigued me until I realized that Christ's and Paul's intentions were quite different. Christ was bringing about a human justice revolution that turned social order on its head. He even says "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first."
Paul, however, was building a church. In particular a church that was inoffensive to the Roman authorities, who were in the habit of annihilating any groups they deemed politically subversive. Hence all the text about obeying the authorities, in particular the Roman ones.
Marrying these two extreme perspectives, social revolution and social reification, into one cohesive theology is perhaps a challenge Christians will never be able to achieve to a majority's satisfaction. But I guess that's the whole point of having different denominations.
February 21, 2007 2:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 14:37
Very well put Neal,
unfortunatley, people like to make comments. I know I do when I read Revelations. that book is just plain crazy.
I don't read it literally at all. It is obviously a story written to scare Rome and especially it is geared towards the emperor Nero at the time. By the way, did you know 666 comes out to NERO? and not to the devil? Interesting thought there.
Oh well.........keep it coming guys, this conversation is way better than the others
February 21, 2007 2:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 14:11
Ambassador for Christ:
"Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution,whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good."
Slavery in America was a "human institution" until 1863 (date?). The additional "whether" is given as examples of what to be obedient to, not as limiting the prior "every."
If Americans prior to the Emmancipation were to follow Paul's advice we would still have slavery. As well, we would still be under British rule.
The key text, which neither you nor I have quoted yet, is the "as all authority comes from God" line. When Paul says that, he is saying quite clearly that the authority of the master over the slave is endorsed by God. I simply see no other way to read that other than Paul endorsing slavery.
I'm going to try and find that, along with the full accompanying text, so that the context is completely clear.
February 21, 2007 2:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 14:10
I am enjoying the philosophical discussion on "idealism" versus empiricism, please keep it up.
Question for Ambassador et al:
Is it not true that people who were left handed were once looked at askance by the church, in fact, being labeled "sinister?" Was not the thinking that left-handedness was a sign of the devil? In light of this lefties were often forced to use their right hands, in essence, to "not act on" their natural tendencies towards left-handedness.
Of course, now we know that handedness develops early and without any volitional component on the part of the individual. And, the church has dropped this silly idea.
I think yu can see where I am going with this, and I do not want to play socratic "gotcha" games in the middle of a discussion amongst intelligent and courteous people, so I'll cut to the chase: It is appearing increasingly likely that sexual preference is also outside of volitional control, and that the exhortation to just "act hetero" or refuse to act on the natural homosexual impulse, is even worse than trying to make lefties be righties.
So, here is the question I guess: At what point do Christians realize that the Bible is simply unjust, incorrect, and (I think) immoral on its stance towards homosexuality? Do you not think that our childrens' children will look back on Chritianity's (et al) stance on homosexuality much as we do its stance on handedness?
February 21, 2007 2:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 14:09
Russell D:
Actually what I posted is nowehere near the full extent of the text on Paul's attitude towards slavery. When I read the New Testament last April I was shocked, frankly, at what I found, especially in Paul's letters.
If you read the entire text of what Paul says regarding authority (in three seperate letters no less!) he clearly and explicitely endorses slavery as being sanctioned by God. In one case he follows up his admonitions to slaves with the phrase "as all authority comes from God." I simply see no other way to read this as "God endorses slavery."
My point is that most fundamentalists use the text in Paul's letters to support their discrimination against women and homosexuals, yet at the same time ignore his equally clear text regarding things like slavery.
As well, they completely abandon any pretense of a literal reading of the bible when it comes to The Revelation of John. In that case the creativity and imagination of their interpretations is enviable. Heck, they ought to be teaching New Criticism in some graduate english department.
As I see it, our problems regarding what to make of the New Testament can be phrased as follows: we mistakenly read Paul's Letters normatively as well as descriptively and we mistakenly read the Gospels descriptively as well as normatively.
There is simply no historical evidence that any of the events described in the Gospels ever took place beyond that a man named Jesus with brother James and father Joseph was crucified by Pontius Pilate. This is what I mean by mistakenly reading the Gospels descriptively.
However a normative reading of the Gospels is entirely appropriate and what I consider to the essence of the utility of the bible to Christians. Christ's instructions to us regarding how to live are timeless as well as profound. You don't even have to believe in the resurrection to agree with his teachings.
As for Paul's letters, I consider them to be a selection of writings detailing the early life of the church. Nothing more, nothing less. As an analogy one might imagine a historian selecting some of Bill Gates' early emails to the Microsoft staff. They have great value descriptively, but almost none normatively. Why would any of the rest of us want to follow what Bill Gates says to his early staff? It simply doesn't apply.
One other point before I get off this rant: picking and choosing a line here and a line there from the New Testament and sowing them together into some out of context patchwork is simply bad theology. I wish more Christians would read the New Testament in its entirety, without any "commentary", and draw their own conclusions. After all that's the essence of protestantism isn't it?
February 21, 2007 1:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 13:58
Hi Neal,
Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that I would have to disagree with your assertion that "Paul explicitly endorses slavery." According to Webster's Dictionary, "endorse" means "to express approval or support of, especially publicly." Based on that definition, Paul does not endorse slavery. He does, however, recognize it as a fact of life during the days of his ministry, and therefore includes them in his letters.
1 Corinthians 7:21-23 says, "Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men." It should be very clear that this is not an endorsement of slavery.
In Ephesians 6:5-8, Paul says, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free." Again, Paul is not endorsing slavery. He is simply addressing those who are slaves on how they should live.
In Colossians 3:22-25, Paul says, "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters,not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality." The same explanation applies here as the Ephesians passage. This is not an endorsement of slavery.
Regarding the text that you quoted, Peter did not endorse slavery either. He recognized it as a fact of life during that time and thus addressed slaves on how to live for Christ. If you take the entire text in its entirety, it reads, "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution,whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps." (1 Peter 2:13-21)
Thus, to answer your question, "If you follow Paul's teachings regarding women and homosexuals why not follow his teachings regarding slaves?" I do believe I follow his teachings regarding slaves, based on the discussion in this post. Nowhere does Paul or Peter endorse slavery. Nowhere do they say, "Hey go get some slaves." They are only recognizing the fact of life, and all of their comments are addressed to the slaves themselves, not about the slaves.
I hope this explanation sufficiently answers your question.
February 21, 2007 1:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 13:34
Neal:
It seems you may have read that the wrong way, but what do I know, I am sure the Ambassador will be more than happy to alleviate it for you.
Gotta remember though, Paul wasn't a very reliable source anyways. Probably wasn't even Paul who wrote the letters to the Romans.
He probably isn't the best source to believe in when regarding women and homosexuals. The guy was jealous of Mary in the first place, so of course he is going to be bitter to women.
February 21, 2007 1:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 13:24
In all this talk about biblical in-errancy you've negelected my post regarding slaves. In three seperate letters Paul explicitely endorses slavery as part of the "all authority comes from God" line. If you follow Paul's teachings regarding women and homosexuals why not follow his teachings regarding slaves? They are very clear and in three seperate letters.
To refresh your memories on one of them:
1st Peter 2 (NIV):
13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
February 21, 2007 12:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 12:33
Dear Sledge Hammer (Great name by the way!),
Thank you for your reply. You sound very well-versed in the area of philosophy, and no doubt have attained more knowledge than I on this subject. However, I will attempt to address some of your questions.
You asked, "Why is it that you come to different "interpretations" than your fellow Christians, or why are there so many Christian denominations? These are the "objective" evidence of its relative nature."
This is a very fair and legitimate question. First, let me say that according to the Bible, Christians are still sinful human beings and are not above making mistakes. As I stated earlier and what began my discussion with you, is that just because we get it wrong sometimes does not mean that the Bible is not objective truth (given the definition that I used in an earlier post). Regarding why there are different denominations, the ultimate answer is sin. However, more specifically, I believe the answer is that there is an anti-intellectualism that has taken over the churches. As J.P. Moreland discusses in his book "Love Your God With All Your Mind", three awakenings broke out in the middle 1800's which resulted in an overemphasis "on immediate personal conversion to Christ instead of a studied period of reflection and conviction; emotional, simple, popular preaching instead of intellectually careful and doctrinally precise sermons; and personal feelings and relationship to Christ instead of a deep grasp of the nature of Christian teaching and ideas...what was a problem, however, was the intellectually shallow, theologically illiterate form of Christianity that come to be part of the populist Christian religion that emerged." (See p. 23 of his book). Second, "the emerging anti-intellectualism in the church created a lack of readiness for the widespread intellectual assault on Christianity that reached full force in the late 1800s." Christians began to withdraw from the public debate, and would not engage in discussions such as we are now participating. Thus, without a strong commitment to the doctrines of the faith, many people began to offer new "interpretations", and disagreements arose creating the many different denominations that we have today.
You also said, "You cannot show any equivalent evidence of the so called absolute truth." This comment could lead into the discussion of foundationalism and the idea of properly basic beliefs (not based upon evidence). I will only say that based upon foundationalism, not all objective truth requires evidence.
Thank you for your challenging comments. You have given me much to think about, but I fear we will not come to an "absolute" agreement (sorry for the word-play there) as this discussion has raged on for hundreds of years.
Have a great day, I hope we can talk again sometime.
February 21, 2007 12:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 12:06
Very good response Ambassador.
I am not confirming Jesus' divinity, cause I think that he was just a man with a plan. But that is besides the point.
Ever think that Jesus was bipolar? Mood swings like crazy..........
February 21, 2007 11:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 11:12
Marco Polo,
Thanks for the response. It is true that Jesus taught love. But, it is mistake to believe that he ONLY taught about love. There are many hard teachings of Christ. Consider the following words of Christ as a sampling:
John 8:43-47 - "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
Matthew 7:21-23 - "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"
Matthew 10:32-33 - "So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."
Matthew 11:23-24 - "And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."
Luke 12:49-53 - "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
I do not quote these passages to portray Jesus as a harsh unloving person. But neither should I say nothing when others speak of his teachings as only about love. Jesus Christ was God incarnate and therefore had the same attributes as the Father.
Furthermore, if you hold to the fact that Jesus appeared to Paul on the Damascus road and that He was indeed His messenger, then it follows that you accept Jesus Christ's divinity since this was a supernatural encounter. Hence, if Jesus was the Son of God, don't you think that He had the foreknowledge and foreordination to know what Paul would write? If He was to write and teach something that was not from God, why would Christ select Him as His messenger?
Thanks again for your thought-provoking comments. Have a great day.
February 21, 2007 11:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 11:05
Ambassador, the closest thing we have, with regard to our discussion, that can be said to be in the objective world are the bible and brains. My contention is that you are disregarding the brain part. Please do not just dismiss this. This requires some looking into cognitive fields of research (though I think a little common sense seems to go a long way). Why is it that you come to different "interpretations" than you fellow Christians, or why are there so many Christian denominations? These are the "objective" evidence of its relative nature. You cannot show any equivalent evidence of the so called absolute truth.
Also, there is a difference between "absolute" and universal. The fact that we all have brains is a universal, and is the basis for my relativistic argument. This the confusion represented in your last comment. Finally, I do believe that because we all share a very similar nervous system, brain included, there are some views held by humans that appear to be absolute, like avoidance of suffering, but this is a result of the fact that we all share a similar nervous system, not because the truth is "out there" for use to "discover".
You say your measuring stick is "objective truth". Show me. Do you think that mearly making the claim makes it true? Show me. Why can't you and Christiandom agree on this objective truth. If you had a measuring stick, where would the disagreement be? Do we argue over what 5 feet eight inches means?
February 21, 2007 11:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 11:02
Dear LAD,
Thanks again for the comments. See my response to Sledge Hammer above.
Are you familiar with what is known as progressive revelation/dispensationalism? The term dispensation is a way of describing a time period in which God establishes rules by which his relationship between He and his people are governed. Thus, this holds that God revealed more of His plan as time passed. He revealed some to Abraham, He revealed some to Moses, etc. Because of this, it means that you have to pay attention to where you are in that revelation to determine the significance of the promises and commandments because as God revealed more of His plan, it appears to us to have "changed" when in fact, we just learn more about it. (I will speak to the notion about God changing in just a second) Therefore, the Law of Moses is only binding during the period of the Law. When God revealed Christ, the dispensation of the Law was done away with. This does not mean that the Old Testament is any less valid as God's revelation to us, it only means that God has since revealed more of His plan. If I tell you that I have ten dollars in my pocket, but three days later, I tell you that I have a five dollar bill and five ones in my pocket, does that mean that my statement to you three days ago wasn't true or valid? No, it simply means that I have revealed more specifics about the money in my pocket.
You stated, "If something (like the OT) is absolute and sacred then by definition it must not be changeable or voidable." There are two senses in which God does not change. First, there is the ontological immutability of God in which His essential attributes cannot change (such as his holiness, his omnipresence, his omnipotence, etc.) Second, there is the ethical immutability of God in which if God promises something, He is the perfect promise-keeper and is obligated to keep His promise. (See Psalm 102:25-27, Malachi 3:6, and James 1:17) However, there is a sense in which God changes, which is known as relational mutability. This means that God in relation to His people changes. It is a change in His activity towards people due to a change in the ethical situation (such as Moses and the golden calf, Jonah and the city of Nineveh). Once Christ came to fulfill the Law, God's relation to His people changed from one of Law to one of grace as I have described in earlier posts.
Having said all of that, we will most likely still agree to disagree. It's been lively discussion though, that's for sure. Have a great day!
February 21, 2007 10:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 10:39
BGONE, I do like your idea. It would explain why the stories of Moses and Jesus reflect each other.
I am not writing to confirm that Jesus existed, just writing about the principles for which he stood.
and no, it doesn't hurt, it's kind of cool actually
February 21, 2007 10:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 10:21
Geez Ambassador, Marco. Jesus is a fictional person based upon a real one, the Egyptian would-be Pharaoh, Amenophis IV. The Amen had a small problem. She was a woman at a time when women were shut out of Pharaohing. She's also the one on who's life Moses is based. So we can say that both Moses and Jesus were a woman with a wife.
Hurt too much to cry? Laugh. It's good for ya.
The Bible is a proved hoax. Small wonder sex, a very natural human urge, is so messed up in the Bible. Try http://www.hoax-buster.org/sex for a little insight. Sex can be dangerous so approach cautiously, especially when it's someone else's sex your approaching.
February 21, 2007 10:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 10:15
Thank you for your reply ambassador.
I realise that Paul was to speak for Christ. But here is a question that you need to ask yourself.
If you were a teacher and taught things a certain way, would you want someone else to teach them another way?
It seems that Jesus taught love, yet Paul threw in a little hate there. If I said something, I'd want to make sure that whomever I chose to relay that message got ir right, and didn't ad-lib.
Maybe I am being callous, I don't know, but I would say that what Paul said is not what Jesus would have wanted. Besides, I thought Mary was the one he took into private council. Maybe she had a better idea of what Jesus wanted than Paul could ever imagine. Paul was jealous.
February 21, 2007 10:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 10:03
Dear Marco Polo,
Thanks for the comments. Concerning homosexuality, you said, "The Bible may say its wrong, but did Jesus say it was wrong?" There's a great deal to discuss from this question, but I'll try to be as brief as possible.
First, we do not have record of Jesus explicitly speaking about homosexuality in the four gospels. However, Jesus said to his disciples in John 16:12-15, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."
If you fast-forward to Acts 2, you will find the coming of the Holy Spirit. Finally, we come to Acts 9:15. In this passage, Jesus says that the Apostle Paul "is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel." Hence, Jesus affirms and commissions the Apostle Paul to act as His representative and on his behalf. The Apostle Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. Hence, since Paul was chosen by Christ to speak on His behalf, Jesus does affirm the teaching of Romans 1 regarding homosexuality.
February 21, 2007 9:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 09:53
Sledgehammer,
Thanks, yes that is what I was getting at. If something (like the OT) is absolute and sacred then by definition it must not be changeable or voidable. I can't see how one could have it both ways.
i.e.: "Yes it is the absolute truth and word of God almighty...but, well we don't really have to follow all of it because parts of the NT eliminate the need."
Then the pretzel logic then starts again and we wind up full circle.
Like I said I cannot see how it works both ways.
Are we supposed to kill people who work on the Sabbath? Am I supposed to bring animal sacrifices to the temple? Am I allowed to eat shrimp, it is an "abomination" after all?
Wrap your head around that eating shellfish is an "abomination" yet in the US the seafood industry is a multi-billion dollar enterprise and NOBODY seems to care.
Yet when it come to homosexuals...well we know how that works.
Sorry folks, you can't have it both ways.
P.S., Ambassador, thanks again for the reply, have a great day.
February 21, 2007 9:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 09:28
I cannot agree with the ambassador. The Bible may say its wrong, but did Jesus say it was wrong? Did he have a problem with it? I'd like to know specifically, cause I want to look it up. Seems most of the hatred for homosexuals comes from bigoted writers who liked to put their own shortcomings into the Bible. Get back to me on that ambassador, please.
February 21, 2007 9:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 09:27
Dear Phaedrus,
Thank you for your kind response. Regarding your first question, I must plead ignorance on the topic.
Regarding my stance on gay marriage, I hold to the Bible's teaching in Romans 1:26-27, and therefore cannot support gay marriage.
Thanks again for your comments. Have a great day!
February 21, 2007 8:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 08:20