Are u going to leave USA now?

[sojourner]

you seem to indicate that NT was more progressive than the OT. Which leads immediately to moral relativism, don't you think so?

The very fact that there even is a "New Testament" belies the fact that the texts have always been in flux. the fact that even the oldest OT texts have been compiled from several other sources, redacted, translated, and added to, tells us that they have always been in flux and are not "absolute" in either their structure, message, or moral scope. Morals change as culture changes.

 

[dust1n]

You know what happened next, right?

Lot is saved for offering up his own daughters to an angry mob of rapey dudes instead of the angels. Angels make rapey mob blind. Angels tell lot to grab his stuff and get out there cause they're going to destroy it. Lot pleas for them not too, but they are going to anyway. Tell him and the family not to look back, cause I guess if they look back, god will sweep them up with a broom. Lot haggles to go to small town instead of elsewhere, but ends up going to the mountains anyways. God kills the city, and also all the vegetation too for some reason (gay vegetables). Lot's wife looks back and turns into a pillar of salt. Lot and his daughters are in cave, the daughters get him drunk and sleep with him, and have two children that start the lineages of two new people.


So, when's the firestorm coming? It's been a couple weeks now.

 

[catch22]

I like pot stirring. But you seem to indicate that NT was more progressive than the OT. Which leads immediately to moral relativism, don't you think so?

Don't you think we need Bible V2.0 today?

The revelation of God comes in stages, seasons perhaps. 2.0 as you say it is on the horizon. There's a preview trailer in Revelation for your perusal.

Well,I am not talking of pastors. I know that P. Roberstson does not approve, for instance.

I am talking of rallies protesting against the marriage between Christians and non Christians. I am talking of political lobbies claiming the this sort of marriages is against God's law as Scriptures clearly show. Where are they?

I don't know. I haven't looked, really. I don't think it's a cause that would lend any fruit; people do what people do.

My experience is not so relevant. If the Bible was relevant we should see the same opposition to mixed religious marriages too. But we do not. Why not? Are some violations thereof more tolerable than others?

To people in certain cases, I think so. Trust me, I think many make a far bigger deal of the same-sex sin than other sins, which leads only to questions like this. Religion or not, it's a progressive thing in the world in the last few decades, and is socially as shock factor to many. The religious took it just as hard if not harder, I suppose.

Obviously. If He is God. But since we can safely assume that His will shall be done, I do not see the purpose to pray. Is there a chance that He might change His plans by asking?

Are you familiar with Christ's plea in the garden of Gethsemane? It's more useful in many cases to pray to be aligned with God's will, than it is to ask it to change.

Nope. But even if I did that, that would still fall short of being called a personal relationship, I think. Especially, if he does not clearly tells me what He thinks about things.

On second thought, if I ask my landlord how old is his house, he will probably tell me. God does not even seem to be able to communicate this simple information reliably. Answers about the age of the Universe deviate by 6 orders of magnitude among Christians. Which makes me seriously doubt about the reliability of their close encounters with the boss.

What simple information, though? Physical, mundane, information you would go to the throne room of the Lord for? Try google first?

On the other hand, if it was a matter of the spirit, you'll likely have a better experience. If you're a mathematician, I wouldn't come to you to fix my car, would I?

Well, you do not know how much I give for Africa. But feel free to replace the kid in Africa with the European kid who died of bone cancer, if you prefer.

Oh yeah. I saw a movie about them.

Charity, mainly. i am a mathematician, therefore I am not very useful with practical stuff.

I wasn't saying so out of judgment or rebuke, it was a rhetorical question to demonstrate why you might place blame on God first, and not the world, who clearly discounts African by and large? If we invested in Africa like we invest in our own selfish entertainment, would Africa be the constant source of examples people use to discredit God?

Well, I am sorry you lost all that.

But I do not disbelieve God because I pray and I do not receive. That would be absurd, anyway. How can you pray if you do not believe first?

Well, therein lies a big problem, no? So here we have a calvinist ideal; were you ever saved? Did you ever believe? How can you once believe, and then no longer believe, if you actually believed to begin with? If you had, you would still believe?

If some pray and they say it works, does it actually work for them, or are they just overly positive?

No, I disbelieve, among other things, because I noticed that people praying to Jesus, Brahma, Allah, Apollo, their iPad, whatever, have the same rate of success. And when there is no success, then it is God's, or their iPad's, will.

In analytical mechanics we call that a cyclic variable. It has no effect whatsoever on the course of things.

Mechanically, you may be correct on some or most levels, but possibly not all. Who can say for sure?

However, if it gives a mentally or spiritually positive feedback, that results in a measurable increase in... any attribute, is it not sound? If I pray before a test, and am thus more confident, and perform better than if I had not prayed, is that not useful? Sure you might argue it's rooted in psychology, but who cares if I passed the test?

I think it would be arrogant firstly to assume prayer does or does not work. At the very least it is arrogant to presume you can see or know the outcome, whatever it may be. For example, I might recall to you that when I pray for others, my prayers "work" better, but it isn't about working or not working, so much as it is the fact I'm talking to God about His people, and we're all more connected because of it. The beauty of prayer may not be in outcomes of the physical world, but outcomes of the spirit realm.

What if I told you that I was going to pray for you every single day, for the rest of the month? Would you think about that each day you woke up? Would it impact you in some way, knowing somewhere, a stranger cares so much about your day and what happens to you, to stop all he is doing in his own busy life, to lift you up in the presence of God?

And how am I supposed to know that the people He is using are not mistaken, if they are fallible? Hoe do you know that they did not lie to you, or are just deluded?

Ciao

- viole

I suppose you ask a fundamental question about faith?

 

[catch22]

The very fact that there even is a "New Testament" belies the fact that the texts have always been in flux. the fact that even the oldest OT texts have been compiled from several other sources, redacted, translated, and added to, tells us that they have always been in flux and are not "absolute" in either their structure, message, or moral scope. Morals change as culture changes.

If this were entirely true, as you seem to imply, would we be talking in this thread?

 

[catch22]

Lot is saved for offering up his own daughters to an angry mob of rapey dudes instead of the angels. Angels make rapey mob blind. Angels tell lot to grab his stuff and get out there cause they're going to destroy it. Lot pleas for them not too, but they are going to anyway. Tell him and the family not to look back, cause I guess if they look back, god will sweep them up with a broom. Lot haggles to go to small town instead of elsewhere, but ends up going to the mountains anyways. God kills the city, and also all the vegetation too for some reason (gay vegetables). Lot's wife looks back and turns into a pillar of salt. Lot and his daughters are in cave, the daughters get him drunk and sleep with him, and have two children that start the lineages of two new people.

So, when's the firestorm coming? It's been a couple weeks now.

I'm glad you read your bible.

When there are no righteous left to spare. As you implied in your earlier post, driving God and His people out will lead to your firestorm, not to utopia.

 

[sojourner]

If this were entirely true, as you seem to imply, would we be talking in this thread?

It is entirely true, and we are talking on this thread. Have you any shred of real evidence that the NT doesn't really exist, or that the texts were not compiled from earlier sources, redacted, added to, or translated?

 

[sojourner]

I'm glad you read your bible.

When there are no righteous left to spare. As you implied in your earlier post, driving God and His people out will lead to your firestorm, not to utopia.

In what way are either gang rapists like loving homosexuals or their advocates? In what way might singling homosexuals out, based on a certain reasonably untenable textual position, resemble the inhospitality of Sodom that caused its destruction?

 

[catch22]

It is entirely true, and we are talking on this thread. Have you any shred of real evidence that the NT doesn't really exist, or that the texts were not compiled from earlier sources, redacted, added to, or translated?

This is a problem with history in general, it's by no means isolated to biblical history. Most secular historians are in agreement of the reliability of the texts, though. There are questionable verses here and there, but overall, it's not as debated (nor altered) as you make it out to be.

On the other hand, you will likely find no other historical document as well supported as the New Testament, in terms of cross referencing and verifying through plethoras of multiple sources. There's something like 5000 (or more) unique manuscript elements to check between, which is uncanny from the ancient world. Rock solid, irrefutable proof might not be given by todays standards, but as an ancient document, it's quite authentic.

I can't say the same for the older texts handled by the Masoretes, though. That's a problem I have with Jewish members here, and I've debated on the topic several times. But, we are talking things more akin to word play than outright abridging or omission. That does happen, but it's usually because the damage of the scroll, not maliciousness of the copy writer.

Have you never seen comparisons of the Masoretic texts versus the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example?

It's kind of elementary to refute the validity of the texts. I'll let some of the various rabbis here speak to that, though.

 

[sojourner]

This is a problem with history in general, it's by no means isolated to biblical history. Most secular historians are in agreement of the reliability of the texts, though. There are questionable verses here and there, but overall, it's not as debated (nor altered) as you make it out to be.

My argument isn't that it's grossly altered. It's the fact that it's been altered at all that alludes to its inherent fluidity -- in terms of moral focus, as well as textual anomalies.

On the other hand, you will likely find no other historical document as well supported as the New Testament, in terms of cross referencing and verifying through plethoras of multiple sources. There's something like 5000 (or more) unique manuscript elements to check between, which is uncanny from the ancient world. Rock solid, irrefutable proof might not be given by todays standards, but as an ancient document, it's quite authenticate.

Again, I didn't say it was inauthentic. I said it is inherently fluid.

It's kind of elementary to refute the validity of the texts.

I'm not saying they're "invalid." I'm saying that they are inherently fluid.

 

[catch22]

In what way are either gang rapists like loving homosexuals or their advocates? In what way might singling homosexuals out, based on a certain reasonably untenable textual position, resemble the inhospitality of Sodom that caused its destruction?

It was not inhospitality alone that condemned the city. Nor was it the rapists. You are hyperfocused on the homosexual implications of the text. Homosexuality isn't what sodom should be known for. Unrighteousness, sin in general, going against God... rebellion. God said He would spare the city if even 10 righteous people were present. Alas, it was destroyed.

Jesus says the end times will be as the days of Noah. In those days, no righteous could be counted, none but Noah, so Noah was spared and the rest destroyed. It will be this way again, but many, in contrast to those days, will be saved.

EDIT: first sentence, forgot the not

 

[dust1n]

I'm glad you read your bible.

I'm not sure why. Reading the Bible is probably one of the biggest reasons I'm not a Christian.

When there are no righteous left to spare. As you implied in your earlier post, driving God and His people out will lead to your firestorm, not to utopia.

So, do I have to offer my daughters over to a rapey mob to convince God of my righteousness, or is that part optional?

 

[catch22]

My argument isn't that it's grossly altered. It's the fact that it's been altered at all that alludes to its inherent fluidity -- in terms of moral focus, as well as textual anomalies.

Again, I didn't say it was inauthentic. I said it is inherently fluid.

I'm not saying they're "invalid." I'm saying that they are inherently fluid.

That's wrong, though. They aren't fluid. Psalms from DSS is the same as Psalms in your NKJV. So where's the fluidity?

 

[sojourner]

It was not inhospitality alone that condemned the city. Nor was it the rapists. You are hyperfocused on the homosexual implications of the text. Homosexuality isn't what sodom should be known for. Unrighteousness, sin in general, going against God... rebellion. God said He would spare the city if even 10 righteous people were present. Alas, it was destroyed.

Jesus says the end times will be as the days of Noah. In those days, no righteous could be counted, none but Noah, so Noah was spared and the rest destroyed. It will be this way again, but many, in contrast to those days, will be saved.

EDIT: first sentence, forgot the not

I'm not at all focused on the homosexual implications. In fact, homosexuality doesn't exist in the story. The topic of this thread, however, includes homosexuality. So my question stands: in what way are homosexuals or their advocates "unrighteous," and how might such a judgment be similar to the inhospitality present in the story?

 

[sojourner]

That's wrong, though. They aren't fluid. Psalms from DSS is the same as Psalms in your NKJV. So where's the fluidity?

You didn't read the post. The very fact that there's a "New Testament" shows that there must be an "Older Testament" in which the texts of the "New Testament" didn't exist. That's fluidity. The corpus of texts has been added to, edited, translated, etc. That fluidity is a fact with plenty of evidence to back it up.

 

[catch22]

I'm not sure why. Reading the Bible is probably one of the biggest reasons I'm not a Christian.

That's unfortunate. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4. Don't let him win.

So, do I have to offer my daughters over to a rapey mob to convince God of my righteousness, or is that part optional?

Your cynicism is humorous only to yourself, I think. Lot's righteousness is revealed in his desire to put God before his own children and flesh; that is protecting strangers at any cost, in this case, God's angels. This is a very righteous thing, despite you seeing only seeing the disgust of the offering them up to rapists. It was a horrible situation to be in, but why do you give the rapists a pass? They are the ones in sin, not Lot.

Which should be obvious to you, Lot was spared, and the rapists destroyed.

 

[catch22]

I'm not at all focused on the homosexual implications. In fact, homosexuality doesn't exist in the story. The topic of this thread, however, includes homosexuality. So my question stands: in what way are homosexuals or their advocates "unrighteous," and how might such a judgment be similar to the inhospitality present in the story?

A member earlier said he turned from God and His word because he didn't believe his lifestyle was a sin and didn't want to hear about it anymore. There is a living example of it. Rebellion against God. Why is this not evident to you?

You didn't read the post. The very fact that there's a "New Testament" shows that there must be an "Older Testament" in which the texts of the "New Testament" didn't exist. That's fluidity. The corpus of texts has been added to, edited, translated, etc. That fluidity is a fact with plenty of evidence to back it up.

I see what you mean now. The revelation of God through man in history is a congruent work. It does come in seasons, stages, however you'd phrase it. I do believe I said that prior, maybe directed at another poster.

If you'd describe it as fluid as I would describe it as living, then perhaps we're arguing about nothing. I thought you meant the atypical "can't trust it it changes all the time" mentality, which is easily refuted.

 

[dust1n]

That's unfortunate. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4. Don't let him win.

Let who win? If I took the verse to mean anything, then since I'm already headed for destruction, God has already blinded me, so that I may not see the light of JC anyways. So, blame him.

Your cynicism is humorous only to yourself, I think.

Probable.

Lot's righteousness is revealed in his desire to put God before his own children and flesh; that is protecting strangers at any cost, in this case, God's angels. This is a very righteous thing, despite you seeing only seeing the disgust of the offering them up to rapists.

A laughable portrayal of morality. If I were to go down the street to find the corner store being robbed, offering the robber a finer gun in exchange for him not robbing the store would make no sense to me.

It was a horrible situation to be in, but why do you give the rapists a pass? They are the ones in sin, not Lot.

I don't give the rapists a pass. Lot is in sin. All people are of sin. He somehow unknowingly got drunkened by his daughters and very conveniently cannot recall sleeping with his daughters two nights in a row.

The general gist I get from the story of Lot. Be on God's side or die. It's not really so much of a justification for killing people who, I guess, commit sodomy. By the way, the only reason Lot is saved, is because Abraham has to haggle with God as to how many righteous people there need to be in the town for God not to kill the town his "brother" is in and everyone with it.

Which should be obvious to you, Lot was spared, and the rapists destroyed.

And the moral reasoning for the death of Lot's wife is....

 

[sojourner]

A member earlier said he turned from God and His word because he didn't believe his lifestyle was a sin and didn't want to hear about it anymore. There is a living example of it. Rebellion against God. Why is this not evident to you?

The member wasn't "rebelling against God." The member was "rebelling" against an unprovable and draconian interpretation of her/his person "in the name of" God.
Why is this not evident to you?

If you'd describe it as fluid as I would describe it as living, then perhaps we're arguing about nothing. I thought you meant the atypical "can't trust it it changes all the time" mentality, which is easily refuted.

I think it can be trusted, but it must be trusted for what it is, and no further. Not for what some wish it might be.

 

[sojourner]

What's "beastly and mundane" about health, happiness and respect?? Isn't that what the church works for on our behalf -- health, happiness and respect?

And just where and when do you suppose that kingdom is? Jesus taught us to pray that God's kingdom would come (ostensibly from somewhere and/or some time else, to the here-and-now). And, BTW, I don't think Jesus threw anyone else under the bus for the sake of his own respect -- either in this world or the "next." What gives you the right to throw your homosexual sisters and brothers under the bus for your own respect, in either world?

What proves it to be "the word of God?"

What constitutes "the rest of the bible?" Do you include the Apocrypha, pseudopigrypha, and Thomas? Do you include other gospel fragments that may have been unknown by those who canonized the texts?

Seems like you're assigning an awfully big bottom line of certainty to something no scholar thereof is certain of. And doing so at the expense of a heretofore voiceless minority.

***BUMP***

I'd really like responses to these questions and statements.

 

[catch22]

Let who win? If I took the verse to mean anything, then since I'm already headed for destruction, God has already blinded me, so that I may not see the light of JC anyways. So, blame him.

No, the god of this age, the god of this world. Not the big G, the little g.

You might take a look through 1 Corinthians 1, though. I'd point you to verses 18-25, specifically, where that may be concerning to you.

A laughable portrayal of morality. If I were to go down the street to find the corner store being robbed, offering the robber a finer gun in exchange for him not robbing the store would make no sense to me.

A better example would be if you're walking down the street and find the corner store being robbed at gunpoint, you'd put yourself between the robber and the store clerk, and offer the robber your money and precious good instead.

I don't give the rapists a pass. Lot is in sin. All people are of sin. He somehow unknowingly got drunkened by his daughters and very conveniently cannot recall sleeping with his daughters two nights in a row.

Had Lot not selflessly tried to protect the strangers, he likely would have been destroyed as well. Alas, the Lord spared him.

Noah became drunk and was disrespected by Ham, which brought a curse down upon his lineage as a result. Noah was a sinner, yes. So was David. So are we all. If God didn't work with sinners, none of us would ever have existed, and this party would have ended in the garden.

The difference, then, is repentance.

The general gist I get from the story of Lot. Be on God's side or die. It's not really so much of a justification for killing people who, I guess, commit sodomy. By the way, the only reason Lot is saved, is because Abraham has to haggle with God as to how many righteous people there need to be in the town for God not to kill the town his "brother" is in and everyone with it.

More or less: the wages of sin is death. Unless you know that I am He, you will die in your sins. I am the way the truth and the life, no one goes to the Father except by Me. Etc. You know all these verses, or shall I cite them?

Lot was saved for reasons described above.

And the moral reasoning for the death of Lot's wife is....

Disobedience. More than that, was the reason in her heart for turning back in light of destruction.