Missing Boy in the N.C. Mountains Found Alive.

[Thomas Rogers]

BigBear, so you are saying that when you need to know, you will know. That sounds like what the original question tried to understand with point/question #5:

5) If you claim that it requires divine revelation to properly understand the Bible, why not just rely on revelation as a source of information, instead of a book? Moreover, why should we accept divine revelations that point to the Bible, while rejecting revelations that point to the countless other holy texts?

That's a good follow-on question to your assertion.



Do you consider other forms of revelation of God's words and desires; other than the good book I mean?



What makes the version of the Bible that you read more, or less inspiration and an instrument of revelation than other version and other Holy Books?



Also, please note, I have found myself from time to time (and I know several others that do this) during a point in my life where I need some direction picking up the good book and literally, randomly thumbing through it's pages looking for a "revelation", and more often then not finding one...finding something that speaks to me and my crisis or issue.



Does that mean the Bible works and is the word? Or might I get similar revelations if reading the Quran, or even "The Book of Tao?"



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

The Old Testament rules were all abolished by the coming of Christ. We are operating under the New Testament now.



However, the Bible isn't so much about rules, dos, and don'ts. It is more about how to live a life successfully walking with Jesus Christ.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin, so then Liviticus denouncing of homosexuality is null and void?



And the New Testament isn't a set of dos and don'ts but a guidebook for successfully walking with Jesus Christ. Sounds good to me.



So let's all get our our books, let's search the red letters, what exactly did Jesus Christ say about homosexuality?



TJR

 

[Rodger Tellefson]

Our way of thinking is that Jesus the Christ was the way shower, and set the bench mark for us all to strive for; and that we all have the same powers lying with in us. It is how we use them that matters.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

With regards to what is in the Bible, vs what we think is in the Bible, vs what we are taught is in the Bible, we ALL know that our fall from grace was because "Eve ate the apple", right?

 

[Jeff C]

145!



Sorry :lol:

 

[Rodger Tellefson]

Wrong: What fruit did Eve really eat, and what was the "fruit" symbolic of in this teaching?

 

[Bill V]

The type of fruit is never specified in the bible; most non-biblical-but-nonetheless-religious tradition represents it as an apple.

 

[Jim Reeves]

TJR

Why? That is the question, isn't it? The truthful answer would have to be "I don't know". Why not rely on just revelation? I think you can know God without the Bible. I'm sure in parts of the world where one has never seen a Bible, God reveals Himself. Can you know Jesus Christ without the Bible? I don't know that either. Jesus said no one comes to the Father except through Him. If I had grown up in Inner Most Outer Mongolia would I be a Christian? I believe so, but i don't know how it would happen. I have seen the promises of the Lord Jesus Christ come to fruition in my life and the lives of countless others. I have gone through some very trying and difficult times and received a peace that I had no right or reason to have. If I had prayed to allah or buddha or somebody or something else, would I have received the same peace? I don't know, but I don't think so. Why don't i have all these questions like you do? I don't know that either? I do know that for all the questions I do have, I believe I have found the Answer. I tried depending on myself, and my soul was sick. I was a miserable shell of a human being. I tried depending on the world and again was miserable. When i put my faith in Jesus Christ, I received a peace and a hope and and a contentment that I could find nowhere else. The old saying goes, why do you always find what you are looking for in the last place you look? I guess I would add, why would you keep on looking for what you have already found?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

All good points, BigBear. Whenever someone says to me,



"And don't you know that I found it in the last place I looked?",



I always respond:



"Well what did you expect? If you didn't find it there you would have kept looking!"



You also said:



"Jesus said no one comes to the Father except through Him. If I had grown up in Inner Most Outer Mongolia would I be a Christian?"





That's a good question. The #1 problem I have with Christianity is the elitism to it all. I have trouble with a strict interpretation of the Bible and the word that would dictate that the very "good" people in the remote reaches of this Earth (yes, there are still some) that simply have never and will never be given the word of Jesus Christ and accept him as their savior, will, by that convention, never have an everlasting life.



If one is a born-again Christian, then that is the believe one must seem to have. I have trouble accepting an interpretation of God's words that would have such a reality defined by God himself....how many countless have died a permanent Earthly death with no chance for everlasting life simply because they couldn't receive "the Word"....or is there more to the word than the Bible? Is there more to "through me" then knowing of Jesus Christ, as taught in the Bible?



TJR

 

[Jim Reeves]

I have trouble with a strict interpretation of the Bible and the word that would dictate that the very "good" people in the remote reaches of this Earth (yes, there are still some) that simply have never and will never be given the word of Jesus Christ and accept him as their savior, will, by that convention, never have an everlasting life.

That's another very valid question, and one I have wondered about from time to time. The first possibility that comes to mind is that God, in his infinite wisdom and omniscience could make sure that anyone who would accept would have the chance. That wouldn't mean that He decides, but that He has fore knowledge. That makes sense to me.



I have heard others say that they believe that God judges based on what you know, but that doesn't make sense to me . If that were the case, the worst thing we could do is to spread the Gospel to all nations as Jesus instructed, because then we would be removing their chance of not knowing and "getting by on a technicality", so to speak.



I know that God's ways are not our ways, and God's thoughts are not our thoughts, but I also believe that God is just.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

BigBear said:

I know that God's ways are not our ways, and God's thoughts are not our thoughts, but I also believe that God is just.

Me too...



...and yet there are so many that think all you need is to hear the word of Christ and accept him as your personal savior and you get your "get out of hell free card" regardless what you did before or after in life; and they think that all others who have never heard of Christ or whom have never made that declaration will burn in hell for eternity, even if otherwise they were saints...



Many, many learned Christians who have impeccible understanding of his word think this way and say it is so in the book.



So, who is right?



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

Great post, Big Bear!



I've also experienced the contentment and confidence your describe. I don't know all the answers, but I don't need to know most of the ones asked here. I am in good shape-- better than I deserve!



Why waste time worrying about the little details that don't matter anyway? All I have to do is to have faith. My life is so much better when I walk with Jesus. It is when I stray (and I do stray a lot) that my life takes a dump. Notice I said "better"--Jesus never promised that my life would be easy.



There are a bunch of things I don't know about, but many of these things are not important to me.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

I got an even better idea. Strip the government of the power of marriage, and only allow them to institute a Civil Union between two humans. Allow churches to marry people.



That way, since marriage was instituted by God, churches can keep marriage "clean". The gay community can continue to live as law abiding citizans.



It is a win-win for everybody.



Unfortunatly, those "loving", Christian Holy Rollers will not like the idea.

Actually, this "Holy Roller" agrees to a point. I know a few couples that got married by the state (coincidentally Kommiefornia....) that is was all to appearant that GOD was not present. No mention of his name, no mention of his word, no appearance of any "religious" ceremony or articles, nothing. That is not a marriage in my opinion, that is just as you said, a civil union.

The Old Testament rules were all abolished by the coming of Christ. We are operating under the New Testament now.

Actually, not all the "old rules" were abolished. Most were as we are under the new law, but there is a lot of the "new" rules that are either based on, reference or are directly related to the "old" rules. Jesus himself commended several of the leaders and the people for being of the house of Levi, especially when it came to the tithe and offering. He often referred to different portions of Mosiac law, so not all of the "old" laws were replaced.

Gavin, so then Liviticus denouncing of homosexuality is null and void?

Quite the contrary. The act of homosexuality is mentioned 4 times in the bible, two of which is in the new testiment.

Old Testament

Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.



Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.



New Testament (Epistles)



1 Corinthians 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality



Romans 1:26-27 - 26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one, 27 and the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

It's important to note that Homosexuals are not wicked people who need to be "destroyed", but rather the sin of homosexuality is equivalent to idolatry, adultary and other immoral acts.



These same passages are nearly identical in the King James Version, New Living Translation and New International Version. The Amplified Bible gives a bit more detail as the purpose of that translation is to amplifly context, though the translation itself is not world-widely considered the greatest stand-alone translation.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

R Shek, read the info at the link I gave above (religioustolerance.org), where each of the passages you list above are compared and contrasted with a conservative and a liberal Christian bent. You will see that even among Christians there is debate.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

religioustolerance.org

Sorry, no such thing as "religious tolerance", why should religion(s) that have been in existance for nearly 2000 years (for Christianity, significantly longer for Judism) be suddenly "tolerant" because a group of sinners say that it should? The bible is just that, the Bible. The church based on Christian values and teaching is just that, the church based Christian Values and Teachings. There is not a "new age" interpretation of the bible that can EVER make homosexuality or adultry not be a sin. The bible has not changed in more than 1800 years, other than different translations.



Why should society just "be tolerant" of religion instead of getting involved in it?



"Religious Tolerance" is not something that is debateable or even conceivable, from either side. A website titled "religioustolerance.org" is not a website that I will waste my time on. It's kinda like the DCC website.... why bother reading such trivle? I could spend that same time doing much more productive things.... reading the bible.... playing with my daughter.... watching the news.... praying for our leaders and our soldiers.... having debates on MyST.com.... picking my nose....

 

[Tom Schindler]

R Shek,



If homosexuality cab be proven that it is a chemical imbalance in the brain, much the same as Bi-Polar or Schitzophrenia is, would you still say Homosexuality is a choice?



Honestly, I do not see homosexuality as a choice of life. It is a fact of life for some people. We know it is not natural for two people of the same sex to want to engage in sex with each other.



I do not want to sound like I think those in the gay community are sick or anything, and that is furthest from my intentions.



But, lets just pose this question.



If scientists, doctors, etc., etc., etc., can prove that homosexuality is caused by a birth defect from being the imperfect humans that we are, would you still say homosexuality is a sin?



If so, does that mean people that are born without an arm chose to be that way? Does that mean my sister, who is seriously retarted, chooses to live that way. Could she just "find christ" and she will be healed?





Tom

 

[Fred]

picking my nose....

:lol::lol::lol: I know all about that, being from the south and all...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

R Shek...sorry, I thought you might be interested in reading about different viewpoints in an enlightened way. Go to the website, it presents BOTH sides objectively.



Man's interpretation of the Bible and how he lives his life by it HAS changed over the past 1800 years, and if you go back to the teachings of the OT, has changed very radically even further back.



Or is it still okay to beat our slaves? Must I marry my dead brother's wife? Is it against my religion to have sex with my wife if on her period? Is divorce a sin? Will I spend eternity in hell on a "meat rap" (Carlin reference I think about eating meat on Friday)?



Yeah, I know, those are interpretations.



But it seems to me that it is hard to refute that we have changed our viewpoints as people of the church to tolerate, allow and not carry with as great a stigma many things that are denounced in the Bible. This has happened, and can't think that all such changes have been bad.



Heck, just the other night at our church's youth group, the Pastor's wife was overheard saying: "I have to get home...American *IDOL* is about to start!"



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, those are good questions.



It is VERY easy for people to judge sins, and to say "we are all sinners", when they recognize that as humans we are all weak, and that at a certain point we will all sin by the definition of the Bible.



But that "we are all sinners" line is WAY overused, IMHO. I'm sorry, but logic and reason would dictate that there ARE people and have been people that actually lead an entire life without sinning. Of course, the Bible would say we are all sinners and have a sin nature and only Christ was perfect, which it has to state and has to link together in order to divide us from Christ and the father and to allow for redemption (because that's the CORE of the Christian message).



But again, logic would dictate that there are those that have and are living lives without sin (at least in thought, action and deed). They don't covet, they don't lie, they don't commit adultry, and they don't have impure thoughts or deeds (etc.).



For example, a severly retarded person without the same mental abilities and capacities might never sin by those common definitions.



The same with newborns and young toddlers that never really get any verbal skills or ability to have reflective thought...no sin of thought, deed or action there.



What I am saying and where I am going is that there CLEARLY are sins of thought, action and deed, and by all means, the Bible should be a book that is used for its counsel on avoiding such sins. But make no mistake about it, those are SINS of choice.



If we are to believe what ALL evidence is saying, and that is that homosexuality isn't a choice by a genetic makeup that one is born with, then we are saying that for that person, we have labeled an action (sex the way their creator intended by their makeup) for them to be a sin, but that same action for heterosexual is not a sin.



Why would God do that?



To that very question I hear all sorts of responses from the fundamentalists, including:



1. Well even if homosexuality isn't a choice, the act of engaging in homosexual sex is, and it is the act that should be avoided, just like I avoid the sin of adultery even though I am tempted!



Rebuttal: RRIIIGGGHTT! (sarcasm) But in your case you still get to have sex now don't you? I guess all homosexuals should be sexless, or live a life of unfulfilling sex?





2. Maybe God wants them to live a sexless life in order to work in their lives in other ways?



Rebuttal: I thought most all religions denounced vows of chastity long ago as a way in which to be closer to God and to do God's work. Isn't what you are describing a step backwards for the church?



Homosexuality isn't a choice. God made them this way, and the bible states he makes us all perfectly, and in his image. If that is the case, then 10% of God was homosexual, a fraction of a percent of God had Down's Syndrome, etc... (putting on my shield now).



TJR