Personally, no problem with it. Some are out there but usually, it's all good. Lecrae is awesome!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Christianity |OT| The official thread of hope, faith and infinite love.
- Thread starter Fernando Rocker
- Start date
- Status
Personally, no problem with it. Some are out there but usually, it's all good. Lecrae is awesome!
EddieGordoAF
Banned
There's plenty on this channel on cable called JCTV
You'd be surprised how much variety there is. A lot of good hip hop, rnb, reggae, alternative.
They even go back to the 80s too.
Chaplain
Member
I just got unbanned today. I have been told I am not allowed to teach the Bible on GAF. So, at the request of a few people, I have made a blog that I usually update 6 days a week.
The name of the blog is "Transformed By The Renewing Of Our Minds" (click on the link to go to the blog).
I started the blog from where I finished my last Bible study on GAF (Exodus 19). I am currently up to Leviticus 20.
Glad to be back, and I hope everyone is doing well.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
There are a lot of reasons to be turned off by religion but this isn't one of them. The first woman I fell for was a Jehovah's Witness. I decided to study with the organization for more than a year (partially for her, at least in the beginning) and in the end my leaving was the reason we split up. Shit happens. Deciding to not look into religion because it didn't work out with a person you were romantically interested in seems to me more of an excuse than an legitimate reason.
Chaplain
Member
Nice.
Thanks!
Here are some new MP3 Bible studies from the past two months.
(Right Click/Save As)
2/17/2013 - The History (past, present, & future) of God's Kingdom (Selected Scriptures)
2/10/2013 - Deception occurs when we believe in a false Gospel/Teacher (2 Corinthians 11:1-6)
Ravi Zacharias - "Need God? What if I don't?"
1/20/2013 - Giving is God's Work (2 Cor 8:1-7)
1/13/2013 - What is Biblical Repentance? (2 Corinthians 7:5-13a)
1/6/13 - The Dangers of Living for Worldly Things (2 Corinthians 6:11-7:1)
For those that want to listen to more sermons, I found an amazing site with over 200 sermons from last year. They are all from Biblical teachers/pastors that stick to God's Word and its context:
Firefighters for Christ 2012 Bible Study Catalog
For those that like CHristian Hip Hop, I also found a site that has free Hip Hop albums.
Humble Beast
Some info about the guys at Humble Beast:
Here are some of their tracks:
Beautiful Eulogy - Entitlement
Alert312 - Vice Versa
Beautiful Eulogy - King Kulture feat. Theory Hazit and Lee Green
Beautiful Eulogy Live at Portland Underground Recording
Theory Hazit - "Find Me" featuring B. Reith // Remixed by Beautiful Eulogy
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Question: As Christians, where do you all stand in regards to the following:
1. Can a gay person who is in a monogamous relationship be in 'good standing' as a Christian?
2. Should the Church (Christian community) accept gay marriage since allowing gays to marry will unite them just as heterosexuals are united in marriage?
3. How do you feel about heterosexual Christians who do not interpret verses regarding homosexuality to 1) not apply to gays in a monogamous relationship; 2) to be understood in the context SPECIFICALLY for the community the author was writing too (Israel/ 1st century Greco-Roman Christians)?
1. Can a gay person who is in a monogamous relationship be in 'good standing' as a Christian?
2. Should the Church (Christian community) accept gay marriage since allowing gays to marry will unite them just as heterosexuals are united in marriage?
3. How do you feel about heterosexual Christians who do not interpret verses regarding homosexuality to 1) not apply to gays in a monogamous relationship; 2) to be understood in the context SPECIFICALLY for the community the author was writing too (Israel/ 1st century Greco-Roman Christians)?
i have a one question
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19:30-38&version=NIV
genesis 19:30 - 38
holy book contain stories like this? Incest ?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19:30-38&version=NIV
genesis 19:30 - 38
holy book contain stories like this? Incest ?
Chaplain
Member
Christian Philosopher Ravi Zacharias sums up how I see it (and does address most of the questions you have brought up).
Acceptance of Homosexuality in Christianity
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Yes. Realize that in the context of Adam and Eve, the only way to reproduce would be to have sex with your siblings/family members. Even outside of Adam and Eve, realize that for most of human history incest played a significant role in society. It shouldn't be shocking. You're reading a book that is at the least, 2700 years old in the context of society in 2013.
Chaplain
Member
God's Word is a lot like a Newspaper at times. In that it reports what was going on in the stories like you posted, but in no way it condones it.
EDIT:
Notice that Lot's daughters raped their father by getting him drunk, and deceived him into thinking they were other women. All parties lacked faith by not seeking God and asking for help in their situation.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Having watched the video, is your stance that Christians can be practicing homosexuals in a monogamous relationships but they shouldn't be allowed to be pastors or leaders in the church?
My view on this is anyone can be anything. Their relationship with God is between them and God. It is explicitly taught that I shouldn't be going around judging people or throwing stones. I would be a hypocrite to say "you are living in sin" when I myself am not perfect.
I think even if you are one of those people that think being gay is a sin, you still have no right to judge others. No one is perfect and the point of Christianity is that none of us were good enough. That's why Jesus had to die. So we could still make it with our imperfections. When it comes to worthiness, no sin is worse than another. You sinned - stealing, adultery, whatever - you're not good enough to make it on your own merits. So if you believe homosexuality is a sin, that sin is no worse than that one time you lied or took that piece of candy or whatever.
But the good news is that it doesn't matter. God forgives us.
As Christians, we should be loving and supporting everyone. Not playing judge and condemning people and telling them how terrible they are.
I don't know how popular my opinion on this is though. But that's what the Jesus I believe in tells me. To love. So love is what I'll do. Hating homosexuality has no place in my faith.
It's certainly a tough issue. I do believe it's a sin and i think reading the bible you get a clear idea that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural. However the church has screwed up big time in handling this issue and trying to reach out to homosexuals. Instead of trying to love them they've often chased them away and promoted homophobia.
It's been interesting from a personal perspective in dealing with this issue. I have a gay extended family member and talking with him has been challenging for me. I've encouraged him to go to church and focus on his faith and just tried to show that i'll love him no matter what.
Certainly though i'll never judge these people. I believe it is wrong and i stay true to that but i know the vile and disgusting things i've done and i can't judge.
This is basically how I feel about it as well.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
I agree with the posters above except I won't say that I don't agree it to be a sin. Personally, I don't have a problem interpreting te NT on homosexuality to apply to those who aren't in monogamous relationships.
The NT as well as the Tanakh are filled with verses that label something as wrong, sinful, etc. that the church no longer accepts to be the case.
The church in many ways always seems to catch up to society with what is and isn't acceptable and true. I wouldnt be surprised if homosexuality will be added to said list the church ends up accepting.
Remember, both Paul & Peter argue it's unacceptable for women to wear gold and pearls. I have yet to find a pastor who believes this was a universal statement that was applicable for all time. While this isn't the perfect example it still displays that what was unacceptable in Paul and Peters day is accepted today. As society evolves so does the Church.
The NT as well as the Tanakh are filled with verses that label something as wrong, sinful, etc. that the church no longer accepts to be the case.
The church in many ways always seems to catch up to society with what is and isn't acceptable and true. I wouldnt be surprised if homosexuality will be added to said list the church ends up accepting.
Remember, both Paul & Peter argue it's unacceptable for women to wear gold and pearls. I have yet to find a pastor who believes this was a universal statement that was applicable for all time. While this isn't the perfect example it still displays that what was unacceptable in Paul and Peters day is accepted today. As society evolves so does the Church.
Chaplain
Member
Jesus calls each of us to deny ourselves. Any person called by God to preach/teach His Word behind of the pulpit should be denying the temptations they have, and not giving in to them. So, even though a person has feelings for the same sex, they should be choosing to deny those feelings, since there is no Biblical justification to give into those type of feelings.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Do you believe women should live their life in 2013 according to a few verses found in a book that is 2000+ years old? I am referring to the example I used above. Should women refuse to wear gold and pearls? Should they avoid braiding their hair? Should husbands and wives always give in to the sexual demands of their spouse?
Chaplain
Member
Peter didn't say that those things were not to be worn.
"Don’t be concerned about the outward beauty of fancy hairstyles, expensive jewelry, or beautiful clothes. You should clothe yourselves instead with the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God." 1 Peter 3:2-4
Paul said the same thing:
"And I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes. For women who claim to be devoted to God should make themselves attractive by the good things they do." 1 Timothy 2:9-10
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Both Paul and Peter state how they want women to dress and they mention examples of things tha don't fall in line with such humility. Wearing gold and pearls as well as braiding ones hair in the greco-roman world portrayed a type of lifestyle and character. Paul wants Christian women to avoid this appearance. He wants them to lead with their actions and devotion. Paul and Peter most definitely didnt support women dressing in the ways they described.
Chaplain
Member
God knows whats best for us. Either we believe this or we do not. A women or mans focus should not be on the external, but on the internal.
Also, when we become married we give up being independent, and our lives become on putting the needs of our spouse ahead of our own. So, if a wife or husband is denied intimacy just because their spouse isn't in the mood (like what is constantly broadcasted through the entertainment industry), this goes against loving their spouse unconditionally. But this also goes the other. Husbands should be putting the needs of their spouse ahead of their own, and wives should be doing the same. This eliminates all most all problems in a marriage when both people are loving their spouses like Christ commands.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Except there are often very good reasons why spouses refuse sex to their spouse. Taking Pauls statement without context contributes to the very problem that led to husbands being able to rape their wives LEGALLY just until te last few decades. This is why context is so critical. To just apply all scripture to 2013 is problematic. We need to appreciate Paul was speaking to a particular community at a certain point in history dealing with a particular problem. We can't just transplant every word said into our age without interpretation.
Chaplain
Member
From the scriptures I posted, that is not what either of them said. Their main concerns were for women not to be concerned about outward appearance. This is something that has been prevalent for a long time now. Society preaches what matters is the external, not the internal. This is the point Jesus was driving home when he said:
"It is what comes from inside that defiles you. For from within, out of a person’s heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you.” Mark 7
The context is in reference to food, but it could be applied our actions. If a person needs to dress provocatively, this shows that something on the inside is wrong. We are called to be humble, not draw attention to ourselves.
Chaplain
Member
Only a person who is practicing sin, could take a verse like that to mean to rape another human being. So, the real issue is not God's Word, but people not living in according to loving their neighbor as themselves.
The context reveals the true interpretation of each text. To say women and men, in marriage, can choose to be selfish goes against Jesus' call to put the needs of each person ahead of our own.
Usually the real underlying point in people ignoring God's Word is because they want to do what they want to do, and not what God wants to do. I would be in error if I thought my way is superior to God's Word.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
The verses you included tell a story of how the two men want women to behave. To let their devotion and humility speak for them. To wear pearls, gold, and braided hair makes this dofficult. WHY? Because the citizenry of the Roman Empire associate such externalities in a particular way. Paul wants the women to convey humility to those they meet. This is why they need to dress a certain way. The type of dress no longer applies today, neither do the jewelry.
Today the two men may say 'we prefer women to not have tattoo's, wear short skirts, and high heels'. Why? Because our society associates these in a particular way. Which is my point. Paul was speaking about a particular type of dress for THAT culture, not ours. This is why Christian women dont pay heed to this verse today. They understand Paul wasnt talking about banning gold and pearls for all time.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
You would also be in error if you assumed your way WAS God's way.
Chaplain
Member
I understand what you are saying, but do not agree with it (in reference to the verses I posted).
I am a sinner. If I am going to walk in fellowship with God, my way needs to be centered on Jesus (who is The Way, The Truth, and The Life), and His Word (which is alive, and sharper than any two edged sword). This is how God transforms us and conforms us into His image. If I stray from this, I will be self-centered and not walking in truth.
Onikaan
Member
I would say that it does apply today. An issue that both Women and Men are faced with.
1 Samuel 16:7
"The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."
And I don't believe either of them "banned" such things. Peter was pointing out that outward appearance should not become more important than your inner self. A message that many can still benefit from hearing today.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Our dress still is relevant, yes, BUT the fashion Peter and Paul were describing is no longer applicable today.
Again, I disagree. Peter and Paul were calling on women to not dress in the ways they described because what it would convey to the world around them. Read 1 Peter. It's all about how Chrisians should live in an empire that is hostile to them and sees their community as being a threat in terms of them not fitting in.
Peter calls them aliens. He tells them to love all amd honor the emperor. Peter was telling his readers how they should live, how they should dress, how they should display they werent a threat. He wasnt focusing only on dressing for God but also for those around them.
Helscream
Banned
Something I would like to add. (Will post more later)
For example stuff in Leviticus about slavery is God really commanding the Israelite's to conduct themselves in a more humane and moral way with their slaves. God is not condoning slavery in those passages in Leviticus. (Contrary what to what many would think). Because of the world of that time and how common slavery/indentured servitude was. God's command to the Israelite's was to regulate it with a higher sense of morality than other nations would.
So yes when you read a passage you need to take in Textual Reference, Historical Reference, and Cultural Reference.
You must also always keep in mind what Shaul (Paul) Said in Romans 15:4
"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."
I say this because most people day completely ignore a book like Leviticus or just throw out the Old Testament Completely.
Lastly just because "The Church" (which is really a splintered group of denomination's) may longer abide or ad-hear to Sin's labeled in the OT/NT does not equate with it evolving or developing alongside with Society. If anything it means that those Church's/Congregations of People have become Apostate. They have compromised themselves instead of staying true to the Word of God.
Dwell on this for now for I will add more later.
What do you think the Book of Jude really meant when it mentions to "earnestly contend for The Faith"
Jude 1:3
"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Oh well, I will give it my best shot ...
That's a false question. There's no such thing as being in 'good standing' as a Christian. We are all sinners. So monogamy and homosexuality or some combination of the two doesn't come into it at all, along with a whole load of other things.
That's a more difficult question, because "the church" means different things to different people. And it's pretty explicit doctrine in whatever brand of Christianity that being united with God is more important that being united to anyone else. Both Jesus and Paul were explicit about this. But on the other hand Paul's "out" towards marriage seems to logically apply to homosexuals just as as much as to heterosexuals.
What the church in the broader sense "should" do is to accept people as themselves and to not get awfully hung up about whatever socio/political/secular/business relations they end up in.
It would, I think, be all for the better if the church didn't get itself involved in marriage at all just as probably politicians shouldn't either.
Doesn't matter in the least how I feel (as if that was a guide to anything at all). What I think is that that in case (1) they are being divisive - in being insufficiently forgiving/tolerant to a bunch of humanity and in case (2) they are looking for excuses for being tolerant of other peoples' behaviour rather than treating tolerance of others as a central tenet which it should be.
Chaplain
Member
I just posted a new Bible Study on Leviticus 20 - Punishments for Laws Already Given (Part 2) & Leviticus 21 - Specific Instructions for the Priests (Part 1).
Some of the points you brought up were also brought up in the following lecture from last month at UCLA University:
Is Tolerance Intolerant? Pursuing the Climate of Acceptance and Inclusion - Ravi Zacharias at UCLA
Also wanted to share an excellent article on the following:
Television as the New Literature: Understanding and Evaluating the Medium
The article is from a Christian perspective, and goes in in-depth detail on multiple subjects regarding TV.
Some of the points you brought up were also brought up in the following lecture from last month at UCLA University:
Is Tolerance Intolerant? Pursuing the Climate of Acceptance and Inclusion - Ravi Zacharias at UCLA
Also wanted to share an excellent article on the following:
Television as the New Literature: Understanding and Evaluating the Medium
The article is from a Christian perspective, and goes in in-depth detail on multiple subjects regarding TV.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
This is true but it's vital to remember that most of the laws were only applicable to the budding or returning community of Israel. The nations at large weren't responsible to obey the vast majority of the Levitical laws.
The book of Leviticus and the Tanakh in general are ignored by a large portion of Christians or they simply decide to pick and choose which laws or portions to see as relevant for today. One problem that exists in most of the churches that I have been to is to use the NT to interpret the Tanakh instead of the other way around. It's one reason why many Christians will find Christologies in almost every verse in the Tanakh. They are reading it in a post Calvary mindset.
We all interpret, I am confident you would agree with this. We interpret newspaper articles, novels, historical records. We interpret film and TV. We interpret music. The Bible is no different. We all interpret the Scripture and because we weren't there to speak to the different authors, our interpretation is influenced by our own life experience, our culture, our age, our biases.
I don't believe that homosexuality becoming more accepted in the church is a sign of apostasy, just as I don't believe that allowing interracial marriage was a sign of apostasy. Or getting rid of enslavement was a sign of apostasy. Or women being protected legally to turn down sexual advances from their husbands wasn't a sign of apostasy. Or women being able to work, hold office in the churches was a sign of apostasy. Or the notion that sex was to be ENJOYED by a husband and wife and it wasn't simply there for procreation was a sign of the apostasy.
If you were an Israelite/Jew in the first century, to hear that the Law has been fulfilled and is no longer applicable would be horrific and indeed was one of the reasons that so many Christians were persecuted by Jewish leaders. If you were told that the Messiah wasn't sent to be a King but rather to die and be raised again, you may have been stoned. Why? Because reading the Tanakh in a pre-Calvary mindset would support such a stance. I and many others (including Biblical scholars and Christian leaders) support that homosexuality was no different.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
You want to summarize or give timing GA? That's an hour and 48 minutes that I don't have right now.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Yes, I should've phrased the question differently.
When I say 'Church' I am simply putting all believers and denominations under an umbrella, for the sake of discussion.
I agree that the church should accept people as they are and that it would benefit society as a whole and the religious institutions in general to not get involved in marriage.
How are Christians who don't interpret the verses regarding homosexuality as not being applicable to gays in a monogamous relationship being anymore divisive than distinguishing between heterosexuals who are married and those that are not?
Are they trying to find an excuse to being tolerant of others behavior or are they simply recognizing that to apply a few verses that were written some 600-2000 years apart shouldn't determine an entire doctrine regarding whether homosexuality is 1) acceptable, 2) gays in a monogamous relationship are less obedient to God than heterosexuals in a monogamous relationship are?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Thanks for responding ClovingWestbrook
I think so too! If you want to try a different wording I'll have a stab at that one as well.
Maybe I ought to expand a bit here. There's "the Church" as in the entire community of Christians, and there's a bunch of different churches that believe and proselytise different things.
Even if I (or we) think that the Church should recognise gay marriage or whatever else that's no reason to claim that all the different churches should, or need, or must do. I do think that individual Christians should recognise the status of marriage however it is defined by the secular authorities (and of course if necessary, argue against it by democratic means) - that's the whole "give unto Caesar" bit.
But on the other hand - and I recognise I may be running a bit far ahead of your argument here - this on its own is no reason to either claim that those of a different belief are not true Christians or to disavow them, nor is it a good reason for setting up some other sect or division of Christianity in order to either do so or to do the opposite. Christianity (at least after Paul) is supposed to be an inclusive religion.
I got a bit lost in the multiplicity of negatives there.
But in the main, it is a matter of tolerance. Not of God's tolerance to us, but of our tolerance to each other. Different thing.
So it doesn't make a whole lot of point to me to be nitpicking biblical references one way or the other. Cutting it very roughly, for Catholics it's about forgiveness for our sins whatever they may be, for protestants it's about faith and not works whatever they may be, and for nonconformists it's about somethings else whatever that is.
Either way, it is not for us to do the judging.
I think so too! If you want to try a different wording I'll have a stab at that one as well.
Maybe I ought to expand a bit here. There's "the Church" as in the entire community of Christians, and there's a bunch of different churches that believe and proselytise different things.
Even if I (or we) think that the Church should recognise gay marriage or whatever else that's no reason to claim that all the different churches should, or need, or must do. I do think that individual Christians should recognise the status of marriage however it is defined by the secular authorities (and of course if necessary, argue against it by democratic means) - that's the whole "give unto Caesar" bit.
But on the other hand - and I recognise I may be running a bit far ahead of your argument here - this on its own is no reason to either claim that those of a different belief are not true Christians or to disavow them, nor is it a good reason for setting up some other sect or division of Christianity in order to either do so or to do the opposite. Christianity (at least after Paul) is supposed to be an inclusive religion.
I got a bit lost in the multiplicity of negatives there.
But in the main, it is a matter of tolerance. Not of God's tolerance to us, but of our tolerance to each other. Different thing.
So it doesn't make a whole lot of point to me to be nitpicking biblical references one way or the other. Cutting it very roughly, for Catholics it's about forgiveness for our sins whatever they may be, for protestants it's about faith and not works whatever they may be, and for nonconformists it's about somethings else whatever that is.
Either way, it is not for us to do the judging.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
I actually agree with all that you said. I usually just use the BIG C church when discussing general doctrinal issues. I fully recognize the vast diversity within Christian denomination when it comes to matters of homosexuality and gay marriage.
I am not calling for a unified stance though it would be nice. Also by no means am I arguing that one must be for or against gay marriage or accept homosexuality in order to be a Christian. My stance is that when it comes to one's actual salvation that the homosexual question falls pretty far down on the list; though it is a siginificant issue in our society which is why I brought it up.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I think we are pretty well of one accord here. Well, at least the two of use!
The one bit I'd query is whether (as bolded) "it would be nice" to have a unified stance. I tend to think that wherever there's particular pressure for a unified stance we are probably better off without it - whether in religion, in politics, in business or whatever. Sure, the certainty might be something of a relief - but only if it were certainty , and on the whole is about as likely to be wrong as it is to be right, and then we'd all be institutionally misguided.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Well in matters that we can be 100% sure of (not sure this is possible in any matters of faith) it would be beneficial and preferred to be unified. In matters that are not foundational nor cornerstones to the faith then it does benefit the community to have camps hold to differing opinions.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
On a general point, to be quite honest, I'm not sure that this approach works - or can be made to work (and I'm quite aware that this might drag us off topic, so I don't necessarily want to spin it out in this thread - because it isn't particularly about Christianity or faith but about organisations and communities) - but just to rough it out:
First, there's the "if we can be 100% sure", which I appreciate you doubt we ever can be in faith. I'd similarly doubt whether we can be 100% sure in politics, economics, business, social ideology, differential effectiveness of refrigeration units, feasibility of economic growth and any number of the myriad things that might concern us.
So we're together on that.
Second, there's the whether it would be "beneficial and preferred to be unified" (which, so as not to misattribute you, I must say is based on the assumption of 100% agreement to something-or-other). Well, I'm bound to agree that if everyone agrees then we'd all be agreed. But I doubt whether that's a good position for any institution (again, whether religious, political, social, blah blah) to take up, because things change (from time to time) and things vary (from culture to culture) and things vary (from place to place). It's an imperialist kind of position of "we know best". Now it might be right or it might be wrong in particular contexts, but it's not all that likely to be universally loved.
So I'm by no means convinced that it would be a good idea to have a single Christian position on anything. Which, strangely enough is the position we have got! If what you want is a unified position you'll get it probably, only locally, only through vast institutional (whether political, religious or business) dominance, or through coercion or suppression, which I guess we don't want.
So, frankly, I'm not in favour. Which is fundamentally what the Reformation was about, right? So how come I'm still a Catholic? Answer is that given all this complication I gotta be a something and that's where I'm closest to. Doesn't mean I believe all of it, nor that I should need to, and nor that I'm expected to.
Helscream
Banned
I understand it was applicable to the nation of Israel. I used that to illustrate that obviously their are certain things today that no longer applicable in today's age because slavery is very uncommon compared to the time Leviticus was written.
This I agree with you.
Yes we all interpret, but there are two ways to interpret the Bible.
Exegesis and Eisegesis.
We can live our life's like the Berean's in Acts 17:11 (Searching the Scriptures daily) did.
By interpreting passages in the Bible within the context of the passage itself or seeing connecting passages in different parts of the Bible that say the same thing. For example one of the most common would be a word study. Using a concordance to find where a certain word appears in the Bible and how many times it appears. And in what context what that word used to help us interpret its meaning. Like the Hebrew word in the OT "Almah". The reason we can confirm that Isaiah 7:14 is specifically talking about a "Virgin Woman" is because of the context in which "Almah" is used in other passages of the Old Testament.
So no we were not there to speak to the Apostle Paul and ask him "Hey what did you really mean here?", but none the less we have the letters he wrote down. So when we have a passage in question. We connect and correlate to other passages in the Bible to have a accurate interpretation. This is the correct way to go about scripture interpretations (Exegesis).
Now with Eisegesis people will read stuff into the scriptures which is NOT there or just implement their own interpretations based on their own "experiences, ages, culture, and biases". Interpenetrating scriptures without using the context of the passage or other passages that correlate. This is how you can get nuts on the Ancient Alien's TV show to come up and say that Ezekiel's wheel was a UFO. And its because of this way of interpenetrating the Bible leads to cults like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witness'.
Or actually better yet lets use popular Evangelist to further stress my point. People like Creflo Dollar and Joyce Meyer like to say Psalms 82 and tell us that we as Christians are "gods". The problem with this doctrine is that they are not reading the entire chapter. They stop at Verse 6.
Let me Illustrate
Psalms 82:
1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations
I have bolded verse 7 to point out that what this passage is really talking about (Exegesis) is about the heavenly beings that were "Bene ha Elohim" direct creations of God. And because of their rebellion and their abuse of power that God had granted them. That the day will come will when God will judge amongst the "gods" and in all their power and might they will fall and die like mortal men for there actions.
If people like Creflo Dollar and Joyce Meyer are preaching this and telling their congregations that they are all little god's. Then they need to do them a service and tell them about verse 7. Because they are going to die like mortal men. And I think its rather clear that either Creflo Dollar and Joyce Meyer are completely ignoring verse 7. Or they are just taking verse 7 and completely disconnecting it from the rest of the chapter.(Eisegesis)
So there is a definite right and wrong way to interpret scripture.
With this I will choose my words carefully. I had most a post on this thread a while about concerning homosexuality. Here is my post concerning homosexuality.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=40463577&postcount=3423
Let me stress that even though most people would stress simply on the issue of homosexuality. Its not merely the sin itself, its the grand-scale condoning if it is the issue. Just like the "Name it and Claim it" tied in with the "Word of Faith" (another great example of apostasy in the church) doctrine is damnable and completely backwards with what our Bible says about faith. Hebrews 6 nails this into perspective.
Race is sacred just as sex within the bounds of marriage. I "think" idea you have of interracial marriage being a sign of a apostasy may stem from the rules in which the Hebrew people were restricted to marrying within their own race. The Israelite's were instructed to married within their own ethnicity because it was through Abraham's seed that all nations would be blessed. The Jews were chosen by God to be a nation of priest to the rest of the world. They also were the people that which through the Messiah would come. If Satan was capable of destroying the Jews through war and/or through marrying and having children with a ethnic people outside their own race. They would over time loose their identity and the line of the Messiah would come from would be cut off. The identity and distinguished race known as the Jews would diminished and be non-existent.
Outside of that I would say that I think it would be better for people to marry into their own race to maintain diversity and their own distinguishable identity to call your own. I personally do not have a issue with interracial marriage.
The idea I get from you saying this is that slavery was the righteous thing to do. So that doing away with slavery would be sinful. Was it not the Hebrew people who were enslaved by the Egyptians for 400 years? Did not God deliver them? I would think if slavery was the righteous thing to do why did not the Hebrew people just stay in slavery? Your statement I think self-destructs.
1 Corinthians 7 does a excellent job describing how Husband and Wife should treat themselves in Marriage. To treat each other as King and Queen and to be devout servants to each other. It does mention in verse 5
"Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."
Also you have Ephesians 5:25
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it"
That is a really powerful statement and an absolutely incredible compliment to women. So if you have a man forcing himself upon his wife he clearly does not respect her nor love her as the Bible commands him to. Also the Song of Solomon is a excellent example of true unrelenting love between a man and woman. And in reading that book you can gain a better understanding of what a good example of what marriage should be between man and wife. So no a woman being protected legally to keep her husband from basically raping her is not apostasy. A Husband who harms his wife whether it be physically or emotionally hates himself. Because "A man who loves his wife loves himself" because the two are one flesh. Once again I think your are indirectly saying that a man forcing sex upon his wife is a righteous thing to do.
1 Peter 3:7
"Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."
While I do not have a issue with women being able to work or hold office in a church. Scripture tells that women are the weaker vessel. Women are not inferior. They have the same spirit of life that God breathed into man, but God created man to be the leader of his household. To be the warrior to defend his family basically be the bread winner. Women are designed to be the nurture and caretaker. Men are hardwired to withstand physical and emotional stress. Women are not designed to withstand such a burden. However we can all agree that the role that a woman plays with her children are absolutely critical. And there are just certain needs that a man cannot provide for a child like a woman can. Man and woman are both designed with different roles, but equal creations of God.
I would dare say that the U.S.A is in the mess it is in because men stopped being men and women had to stand up to the task because of it.
Yes you do have some doctrines that sex is simply for procreation and should be not enjoyable whatsoever. Alot of it really derived from Catholic doctrine. I don't know where this idea manifested, but it wasn't from the Bible. I think the Song of Solomon completely contradicts that doctrine (And Rightly So). Sex in Marriage is holy and sacred. It is the physical expression of love between a man and woman.
The idea that the law has been fulfilled by Yeshua thus we are under grace and can sin and do whatever the hell we want to do is clearly not biblical. Yeshua liberated us from the penalty from not upholding the law and has made us righteous unto God.
Isaiah 64:6
"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."
Psalms 143:2
"And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified"
Even His very teachings were incredible because it taught that sin "comes from the heart". That even if a man may look at a woman and lust and if physically does not go outside the bonds of his marriage and covet his neighbors wife he has upheld that law. Yeshua taught that if a man "lust in his heart he as already sinned". His teachings transcended the Torah. Not only did and come to fulfill the law, but His teachings raised the standard even higher!
Actually the Jews were held accountable for the coming of their Messiah. Daniel 9 prophesied on the exact day that the Messiah would ride into Jersuaslam and declare self the Mashiach Nagid the Messiah the King. Which He did on the back on a donkey. And since the Jews failed to recognized His first coming. Romans 11:25 states that Israel is in parted blinded for a time until the fullness of the Gentiles.
Prophetically the Bible clearly depicts two coming's of the Messiah. First to come as the suffering servant. (Fulfilling the Spring Feasts of the Lord) and to come the second time as the Reigning King from the line of David (Fulling the Fall Feast of the Lord). Even scholars of Judaism who study the Old Testament (who are not just picking and choosing the scriptures) realize this. They still don't believe Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah, but they have come to the realization that their are two archetypes of Messiah.
Mashiach Ben Yoseph (who dies as a sacrifice of atonement and rises again)
Mashiach Ben David. (the Avenging Lion of Judah who will usher in the Messianic era of everlasting universal peace)
Homosexuality in this context is different. Just like many other things the Church has written off as being unnecessary to maintain as what is sinful and what is not. Homosexuality has been around for a long time. Just like any other sin. The Lord is no respecter of persons. What he said in the past He meant it then, now, and in the future.
Because of the cultural experience of a person. They may deem any sin to be perfectly ok to do those things. Just like in some parts of the world Cannibalism is still accepted. I believe even in Russia to this day there is no law regarding it. The same can be applied to bestiality.
I mean lets just take fornication between man and woman. If you have a group of 20 people. All married 10 are men and 10 are women. If they consent each other and decide to participate in a orgy and just trade spouses does that make it ok? The Bible strictly forbids of it. Regardless whether or not there is consent between those people.
People like to use the phrase concerning homosexuality "Well if two people really love each other. Than God understands". The Bible does not teach that at all. That is the philosophy of men. Not the Word of God.
Chaplain
Member
Here are two new sermons from today and last Sunday:
(Right Click/Save As)
3/3/2013 - The Characteristics of A True and Sincere Pastor (2 Corinthians 12:11-21)
2/24/2013 - How to be strong when we are weak (2 Corinthians 12:1-10)
Tonight is the two hour premiere of the History channel's 10-hour miniseries on the Bible. Here is a video preview of the series:
THE BIBLE - Official Trailer
I found the exact time that addresses your views.
Click here.
Both Michael Ramsden and Dr. Zacharias respond to the student's question. So, listen to both. The length of responses should be under 10 minutes.
Sorry I couldn't response like you requested. I am taking Mid-terms this weekend. I am leaving right now to take my Philosophy mid-term (yesterday's was on Physical Anthropology), and look forward to what you have to say later today or tomorrow.
(Right Click/Save As)
3/3/2013 - The Characteristics of A True and Sincere Pastor (2 Corinthians 12:11-21)
2/24/2013 - How to be strong when we are weak (2 Corinthians 12:1-10)
Tonight is the two hour premiere of the History channel's 10-hour miniseries on the Bible. Here is a video preview of the series:
THE BIBLE - Official Trailer
I found the exact time that addresses your views.
Click here.
Both Michael Ramsden and Dr. Zacharias respond to the student's question. So, listen to both. The length of responses should be under 10 minutes.
Sorry I couldn't response like you requested. I am taking Mid-terms this weekend. I am leaving right now to take my Philosophy mid-term (yesterday's was on Physical Anthropology), and look forward to what you have to say later today or tomorrow.
Helscream
Banned
I am going to take this show with a grain of salt. I remember when they talked about the Hebrew people and their Exodus from Egypt. They made to naturalistic and boring. They literally tried to do everything they could to subtract the supernatural elements. They did the same with the Book of Joshua. Trying to implement crap that is not in the text itself.
This is pretty neat. I will have to remember Michael Ramsden. Guy seems pretty sharp.
Onikaan
Member
I was going to pick this up for my old man but after watching the trailer I was slightly put off for similar reasons.
Secret Fawful
Member
What do you do if you've never ever ever EVER felt the presence of God and you want to believe in Him. I grew up in a religious household, but no matter how hard I tried, I could never feel a presence like others claim.
I don't have any belief at this point. What are some views on this besides the old favorite "You don't feel God because God doesn't exist"? I'm curious.
I don't have any belief at this point. What are some views on this besides the old favorite "You don't feel God because God doesn't exist"? I'm curious.
i know at my church we have said many times in sermons that 'this is not a science book and it should not be treated as one'. i guess different groups just believe different things. i dont think there is a problem with believing in evolution, for example, as well as believing in god. i dont believe evolution or dinosaurs is an argument for 'god does not exist'. that doesnt mean it isnt treated as such by many people, but i dont think it is the right thing to do.
Onikaan
Member
The divide isn't really between God and Science. The divide is between two world views. Atheism and Theism. An ancient quarrel. But I know what you mean. It can feel at times that Atheism has adopted science to become its very own metaphorical deity, light heartedly or not. And thus, the "battle" commences.
Helscream
Banned
Well maybe this will wet your whistle. A grand plague of locust is afflicting Egypt right now.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/plague-of-locusts-afflicts-egypt/
Another link:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/glob...ing-plague-locusts-descends-upon-egypt/62712/
Passover (Pesach) begins March 25th and ends April 2nd.
Reading this today all I can do is laugh! Reminding us that in the book of Exodus.
The god's of the Egyptians are no match for the God of Israel!
Onikaan
Member
So what's the difference between this plague and the biblical one? Size?
Seems odd that this re-occurs ever year. And it was the 8th plague, you'd think the Egyptians would hardly be phased by this if it was an annual event. Unless this was the first time.
Although after the last 7, you probably would care.
"This is what the LORD,the God of the Hebrews, says: 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me. If you refuse to let them go, I will bring locusts into your country tomorrow. They will cover the face of the ground so that it cannot be seen. They will devour what little you have left after the hail, including every tree that is growing in your fields. They will fill your houses and those of all your officials and all the Egyptians—something neither your fathers nor your forefathers have ever seen from the day they settled in this land till now."
Exodus 10:3–6
I guess that answers my question.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll