The Devil Is At Work In Lynchburg

SuperBaptist,

It's not a question of "can I judge." Jesus was saying that the judgement we use will be used against us. If we call sin what God calls sin, then we are on the same page with God. In addition, we admit that we, save for Christ's work, would be as condemned as any other sinner...in other words, no reason to boast, except in Christ. That is the prohibition--judging from a superior point. Rather, we are saved sinners, recognizing sinful behavior.

Is hating homosexuals a sin? Yes. Is saying what they are doing is wrong? No.

Besides, you're throwing an old argument out there...that sodomy is an OT prohibition. I believe you'll also find that Paul spoke against it as well...so it's not just a Levitical argument, but rather one from the entire scope of scripture.

 

Amen, rbell!

 

The Memo is as close as your Bible, ransom.

 

Where does the Bible teach us to use the courts to suppress other citizens' free speech?

 

we do live in a land where the freedom of speech is supposed to be the right of every man, woman, and child.

Unfortunately, many of those rights are being thrown out the window in this day and age so as to squelch the preaching of the Word of God against the sin that many want to proclaim so boldly.

It is clear that we indeed are living in the days of Noah and in the days of Lot. People living riotous lives, having no regard for the Word of God.

Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus

 

SuperBaptist said:

You go Ransom!

Sorry, you're not my kind of Christian. I prefer the kind that has convictions beyond "Judge not."

 

The Bible plainly tells us we can know the tree by it's fruit. We are also told that we can judge righteous judgment.

One can rightly call an apple tree an apple because it bears apples.

Applied to man, one can rightly call a man lost because of the sin that is produced without conviction.

The Holy Spirit, when He is come will convict a person. If that person is of God, that person will change. He will want to do that which is pleasing to God.

 

Ransom,

I side with you on the issue of free speech. However, I do have concerns about issues the homosexual community is promoting that goes beyond the free speech issue...especially making sexual preferences a protected class. I'm also disturbed by "hate crimes" and the push to include sexual orientation in the mix (already the case in many states, but not mine).

By making sexual orientation a "protected class" we could have the scenario of the government forcing my business/church/whatever to hire a "gay quota," or pay damages to a homosexual because I didn't hire them. There have been some close calls in the legal arena already.

Hate crimes go against freedom...freedom of thought. It seems ludicrous to me that killing a gay man should carry a harsher penalty than killing a straight man. Both crimes should be dealt with severely, and equally under the law. Hurting someone is hurting someone...whether they are a left-handed, handicapped lesbian Eskimo, or a right-handed skinny able-bodied Southern white male (forgive the sarcasm...just pointing out the prevalence of labelling that goes on these days).

I don't want a Supreme Court justice to prohibit free speech, but I don't want them supressing our freedom to disagree with the gay lifestyle.

So, I am hoping for a couple more constructionist judges who will walk that line wisely.

 

I think I have been misinterpreted. I do NOT oppose the Word of God, I just interpret its context differently than some. I believe the Word lives in our hearts through the Holy Spirit and that the Paper Bible has been misinterpreted way too often allowing people, in the name of God, to start wars, repress natural rights of anyone who is not a straight white man, and to make money.

Of this, I am ashamed each time I witness to the unsaved.

Please analyse your motives for so much emphasis on sexual sin over others. I rebuke this HUMAN approach to the WORD. God didn't write paper bibles.

Thank God I still have the right to say this without suffering stoning by those without sin.

 

God told men to write those paper Bibles, SB.

As to people attacking sexual sins over others, if you read all the boards, it is not just sexual sins that the true christians oppose.

I sense a bit of predjudice and a hateful spirit in the statement you made,

You need to get rid of the hatred toward those that stand against the sins that will lead others to hell.

 

SuperBible said:

Please analyse your motives for so much emphasis on sexual sin over others.

There is nothing to analyze.

Martin Luther once said that if one preaches everything except the one thing that the world is currently attacking, he is not preaching Christ.

At this moment in time, God's standard of sexual faithfulness is being attacked. Hence it is appropriate that we respond.

If there is anything "HUMAN" here, it is you, setting your HUMAN mind above God's authority, and pretending it is the "still small voice" of the Holy Spirit speaking through you.

 

ouch!

 

You know, we Baptists make fun of Catholics Dogma regarding the infallibility of the Pope. But we can't admit there were flaws in our paper bible. That's ironic and sad. The men that wrote the "Holy Bible" and those that later chose which books to include and how to conveniently translate them, were "fallable" even if they claimed to be given their instructions by God, just as I am fallible when I listen to what I believe is the Holy Spirit.

Our Dogma has kept an aweful lot of people from coming to the fold and accepting Christ.

When you put more faith in that "material" bible than the voice of the Holy Spirit, that is not faith in God at all, but faith in men, printers, Kings and business interests.

 

But SuperBaptist...

If each of us decide that our "inner voice" will be our "Word of God," then won't we still see a multiplicity of interpretations and conflicting opinions? And then we're back to the same problem we started with...

Has the Bible been used to justify wrong actions? Absolutely...but, I ask you, who's fault is that? The Bible's? I would rather have the Word of God in print (an exterior, objective standard--yes, interpretation might vary in some areas, but authoritative and clear on essentials) than an "inner voice" (a subjective, unseen standard that is subject to the whims of the voice's "owner").

Let me use this analogy: let's say you have a $10,000 top-of-the-line printer for your computer. It prints better than anything you've ever seen. Someone sneaks into your office and uses the printer to print out a couple of obscene letters. Will you come in the next day and destroy your printer because of those letters? The printer ain't the problem...it was the person's misuse of it.

Likewise...the Bible is not responsible for the errors of others' mis-interpretations of it.

 

Don't get me wrong. I read the bible and know it well. But, literalism has been the undoing of many conversions. I also have a strong education in literature and realize, like any good literature, some parts of the bible are metaphorical, some are specific to a time and curcumstance and some analogies.

I am leary of those who claim to KNOW which is which, and just happen to have financial or political benefit from their interpretations.

 

SuperBaptist, no major doctrine is affected by the various versions. Yes, some parts of the bible are metaphorical, poetic, hyperbole, etc. but that does not change the fact that it is the inspired word of God. Even scribal or translation errors have not changed any essential doctrine -- I use several versions (usually NASB, NET, and NIV) when I read and study and so far, have not been confused by the minor differences. I have also used the NKJV and am not confused when I use that with others, either.

I recommend you get Norman Geisler's "A General Introduction to the Bible" which is chock full of the historical and theological background on the canon and all the various disputes, etc. You don't seem to know the history of how the canon came about.

It also sounds like maybe you are reacting to being in a legalistic type church or around legalistic people.

 

Interestingly, no major translation of the original texts, including the most accepted since KJV, Tyndale, "The Living Bible", none of them has dared to change which books or verses, are to be included. They have continued to defer to the KJ Scribes.

We need the courage to be honest about the politicization of the Bible by evil leaders within and out of our churches.

I have seen people make the sign of the cross at me when I have questioned the verse and book selection of the Holy Bible. I am an educated man and I run these things by intelligence and God in prayer, and I see dogma that needs to reform, much as Martin Luther did when he originated our protestantantism.

If I didn't base my Baptistry on my faith in God rather than in men who edited the paper Bible, I couldn't live with myself when I face the legitimate pointing fingers of those to whom I witness.

 

Now, back to Lynchburg. If our faith can't stand up to free speech by gays or anyone, then we haven't much faith. They are not speaking IN the church. THAT would be a sacrilege. We can't proclaim all religious property as "off limits" to free speech.

We are stronger than that.

 

SuperBaptist said:


Interestingly, no major translation of the original texts, including the most accepted since KJV, Tyndale, "The Living Bible", none of them has dared to change which books or verses, are to be included. They have continued to defer to the KJ Scribes.

You know, for someone who claims to have read the Bible, as well as a strong education in literature, you sure don't seem to know too much about the English Bible.

The list of canonical books we know today as the New Testament was settled in the fourth century. Athanasius of Alexandria was the first to write a list of those 27 books and say they were the ones that the Church had received as the authentic Word of God. (The canon of the Jewish Scriptures had been settled since before the time of Christ.)

It was not your beloved straw men, the "KJ scribes," that decided what books went into their Bible. They simply received what the whole Church had received. If they wanted to re-open that controversy, they could have joined the Romanists, who re-opened the Old Testament canon to include the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent.

We need the courage to be honest about the politicization of the Bible by evil leaders within and out of our churches.

What has that to do with the canon? It was not formed by "evil leaders." Though given your presuppositional commitment to an open canon and a mystical, subjective, and personal interpretation of the Scriptures that suits you, I can see why you would want us to believe so.

I am an educated man and I run these things by intelligence and God in prayer,

And we all note with interest which one of the two you put first on the list.

If I didn't base my Baptistry on my faith in God rather than in men who edited the paper Bible, I couldn't live with myself when I face the legitimate pointing fingers of those to whom I witness.

If I based my Christianity on my subjective faith rather than the objective revelation of Scripture, I would probably be in as sorry a position as you appear to be.