Candace Cameron Bure's 'traditional marriage' comments called 'harmful and insulting' by GLAAD

Yet, Christian Cougar Cameron keeps banging guys! 

Yet, Christian Cougar Cameron keeps banging guys! 

One of the biggest problems is like most xian's, she has no clue what she is talking about.  Traditional marriage, in her mind, equates to christianity's definition of marriage, but she refuses to read up on what the bible describes as marriage.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist.  So she is endorsing rape.

Genesis 4:19 endorses polygamy

Genesis 38:6-10, Tamar's husband Er was killed by God for unspecified sinful behavior. Er's brother, Onan, was then required by custom to marry Tamar.  Forced marriage to your dead brother's wife.

Genesis 16 not only endorses slavery, but requires the slave to bear children for the couple that owned her.

On the positive side, Genesis 21:10 allows men to keep multiple concubines along side their wife(wives).

Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes how each captive woman would shave her head, pare her nails, be left alone to mourn the loss of her families, friends, and freedom. After a full month had passed, they would be required to submit to their owners sexually, as a wife.

Exodus 21:4 indicates that a slave owner could assign one of his female slaves to one of his male slaves as a wife.

I just love it when Atheist/Agnostics use the Bible to prove their point.

Ain’t it cool!

I just love it when Atheist/Agnostics use the Bible to prove their point.

You have to learn to speak the language people will relate to.  So when talking religion you use evidence that they cannot deny, the bible.

Or you could use real evidence, evidence YOU believe to be true.    Something you don’t believe in isn’t evidence.    Unless of course you are just lying and/or trolling, the Bible is just fairy tales to you.

Are you the habit of using fairy tales as evidence?

Why no New Testament quotes?  Too much revolutionary inclusiveness between class, race, gender for you?

The Old Testament provides the history of a people and you’ve confused customs and laws for God’s endorsement- rookie mistake.

I just love it when Atheist/Agnostics use the Bible to prove their point.

One need not believe the Bible is divine to make a point about it.   If the point is about what is taught to Christians based on the Bible, why would you find it strange that someone uses the Bible to emphasize their point?

If someone makes a point about the CotUS, would you find it strange to quote the CotUS?

If you made a point about Islam, would it be wrong for you to quote from the Qur'an?

"What you do for the least among you, you do also for me" - Jesus Christ 

Yes, a favorite text of many.

You have to learn to speak the language people will relate to.

When and how do you intend to do that?  Simple copy n' paste?

One of the biggest problems is like most xian's, she has no clue what she is talking about.

Funny you should say that.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist.  So she is endorsing rape.

You are judging this with a modern, Western mind rather than the condition that applied at the time. Further, you imply that, for God to be moral, he must rule on such things according to your standards. While categorically stating that it is wrong for a woman to "have" to marry their rapist may make you feel morally superior, it totally ignores real life. Here are several factors you appear not to understand or are ignoring.

1. Within their culture, virginity was paramount in a prospective wife. Whether she was raped or participated voluntarily, her prospects of being married after being found out were greatly diminished. This is vastly more significant to a woman of that day than it would be to women today. To her, being a wife and mother was her entire purpose in life. It was her source of honor in society. In her culture, it was a form of immortality, being part of the chain of life to produce descendants that kept your line going. 
2. No one of that time would have read these verses as a punishment for the woman, including the woman. This law was intended to be a deterrent, not permission or reward. It meant that you would be stuck with this woman for life, could not divorce her for any reason, even if she prostituted herself every day, cost you financially and entangle you and your family in legal obligations for life. Imagine having to spend your life forever tied to someone who may despise you. 
3. This is not the only law that applies to such a situation. Exodus 22:16-17 states: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins." In actuality, it is the woman's father who has the final say in what happens. It doesn't matter whether she was seduced, raped or asked for properly. The father has the final say as to whether a marriage takes place. 

Genesis 4:19endorses polygamy

This one is just plain wrong and indefensible. It amounts to saying it's endorsed simply because it's in the Bible. That means God endorsed Cain killing Able. Genesis 4:1-16 is not an endorsement of anything. It is a description of how fast mankind deteriorated into sinful behavior. That is, the opposite of endorsement. 

Genesis 38:6-10, Tamar's husband Er was killed by God for unspecified sinful behavior. Er's brother, Onan, was then required by custom to marry Tamar.  Forced marriage to your dead brother's wife.

This may represent your opinion of this event but it isn't reflective of what this event was about. Onan certainly didn't object. In fact, what he did was despicable precisely because he abused Tamar for his own pleasure rather than do his duty to her. That duty was intended to be a compassionate one to the widow, in this case, Tamar. Her hope for a fulfilling life as a mother and mother to her line was dashed because of the death of her husband. The brother was supposed to restore that hope, both providing her with purpose and children who would eventually be her means of support. 

Genesis 16not only endorses slavery, but requires the slave to bear children for the couple that owned her.

Massive face palm. Genesis 16 only records what Abraham and Sarah did. It isn't an endorsement simply because it appears in the Bible. If it were an endorsement, why would God tell Abraham that Ishmael would not be the vehicle through which God would keep his promise to him? 

On the positive side,Genesis 21:10allows men to keep multiple concubines along side their wife(wives).

The reference doesn't seem to even relate to what you say here so I'm at a loss as to how to respond to it. 

Deuteronomy 21:11-14describes how each captive woman would shave her head, pare her nails, be left alone to mourn the loss of her families, friends, and freedom. After a full month had passed, they would be required to submit to their owners sexually, as a wife.

Do you ever bother to think about what you're writing? Seriously. If God's point was sexual submission, what would be the point of the full month? Really, what's the point of the month? Why have her shave her head and pare her nails, making her look less attractive? And a woman with a shorn head would be a symbol of humiliation. Pared nails? Obviously, the intent is to remove her sexual attraction. The month is to allow the youth to come down from the adrenaline fueled high of battle and surviving it. It is time to get to know the woman to determine if marrying her is really a wise thing to do. 

Exodus 21:4 indicates that a slave owner could assign one of his female slaves to one of his male slaves as a wife.

Exodus 21:4 says "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." It doesn't say "assign". This isn't a case of slavery as it was in the American south. Nor does it mean the man, having gone free, lost access to his family. 

Further, who the woman was made a difference. If she were a Hebrew, she would eventually be released in the seventh year or on the 50th year of Jubilee. If she were a foreigner, she was permanently attached to her master. The man who married her would know this and, having married her, would accept it. 

So, maybe you should get a clue before claiming others don't? 

Or you could use real evidence, evidence YOU believe to be true.

What is the point when the factual evidence you present is viewed as overridden by an invisible sky fairy.  It is more convincing to provide evidence the other side cannot dispute due to their own beliefs.

Something you don’t believe in isn’t evidence.

It is when the person you are presenting it to, utterly believes in it.

Unless of course you are just lying and/or trolling, the Bible is just fairy tales to you.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense.  I am not arguing with myself, or another person who believes the same as I do.  I am arguing with a person who believes that the bible is the ultimate truth, the literal word of (their) god.

Why no New Testament quotes?

If you'd ever read the bible you'd know the answer.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

Because the New Testament tells you to obey the Old Testament laws.

You are judging this with a modern, Western mind rather than the condition that applied at the time.

So tell me, is this written there because god was wrong, or because god was ignorant of the future of people? 

Whichever you select means the god who wrote it was not a very smart or knowing god.  So not much of a god at all.  When would you, personally, feel that rape of a young virgin child would be acceptable???

So, maybe you should get a clue before claiming others don't? 

Maybe you should understand that those that believe in the bible, believe it is the word of god.  The problem is that they do not actually read the bible, they just listen to someone else read the good parts, and ignore the bad.

You are judging this with a modern, Western mind rather than the condition that applied at the time.

Indeed, the Bible was written for ancient people.   So it should be interpreted according to the reality they perceived.   Read the Bible as a collection of books written / rewritten thousands of years ago by ancient men for ancient people sans any divine assistence and it all makes perfect sense.   Read it as the divine Word of a perfect God and it is replete with problems.

The problem with sticking strictly to ancient contexts is that the Bible has not been updated to reflect modern mores, values and customs.    Scripture is quoted and taught to the masses by mere human beings (religious leaders) who provide their own interpretations (within the context of the interpretations of their particular sect).

This is an unsolvable problem for religious people who consider the Bible divine.   There is no way to know the 'true', 'divine' meaning of scripture so there is no way of knowing which human interpretation is correct (if any).

Those who claim to hold the true, divine meaning seem to think that they have special insight into the mind of the grandest possible entity (God).   It is more likely that they do not have clue one as to the nature and intent of a divine creator (if one exists).

So tell me, is this written there because god was wrong, or because god was ignorant of the future of people?

Neither one. 

Whichever you select means the god who wrote it was not a very smart or knowing god.  So not much of a god at all. When would you, personally, feel that rape of a young virgin child would be acceptable???

When would you feel a leading question is an actual argument? 

Maybe you should understand that those that believe in the bible, believe it is the word of god.

And maybe you should understand that those who don't believe the Bible, don't believe it is the word of God. 

The problem is that they do not actually read the bible, they just listen to someone else read the good parts, and ignore the bad.

The problem with that is that non-believers spend zero effort in trying to understand what it says. Indeed, they couldn't even if they wanted to, so all they ever come up with is doing exactly what they accuse believers of doing and then claim they don't read the "bad" parts, as if the bad parts mean what you say they do. 

If you'd ever read the bible you'd know the answer.

Your interpretations are unique.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist.  So she is endorsing rape.

You are judging this with a modern, Western mind rather than the condition that applied at the time. Further, you imply that, for God to be moral, he must rule on such things according to your standards. While categorically stating that it is wrong for a woman to "have" to marry their rapist may make you feel morally superior, it totally ignores real life.

If he is 'hot' she might,. . . might no guarantee can bear up under the authority of the law.  But what if he is a fat, lazy, "jelly-roll," with sweaty skin folds she should take 'pride' in that she has "it" for a husband? An individual who thought so less of her he forced himself into her private parts? Okay. So that was by then. (And, we have no proof girls and women did not consider it oppression in B.C. Israel.)

Since we are creatures of the time and space we inhabit: How the heck should we apply Deuteronomy since by today's standards such a 'marriage' would not be considered traditional and allowed to occur/continue?

Since we are creatures of the time and space we inhabit: How the heck should we apply Deuteronomy since by today's standards such a 'marriage' would not be considered traditional and allowed to occur/continue?

If you knew God and the Bible, you'd know this is an irrelevant question to anyone other than a Mosaic Covenant Jew. 

I am actually going to agree with you on this one, Drinker'! Well done! I detect something spiritual flowing in you that I have not before this. Indeed!

You are the one who strictly thought to explain the verses you did, totally ignoring a possibility and context of Ozzwald's delivery.

You are judging this with a modern, Western mind rather than the condition that applied at the time . . . .

So you understood he was not concerned with Mosaic Jews' understanding of the thing in their times. And yet you could not resist.

One more thing, you wrote:  "If you knew God and the Bible" is beneath your confession of faith and I encourage you to strive more to not judge another's servant; particularly since you have not detailed when or where you finished your education as a biblical scholar.

Your 'digs' will not be tolerated further. I have been patient to no avail. Going forward you will keep a civil tongue with me and vice-versa or this will bottom out quickly.

I've always wondered about the application of Matthew 7:6.

Neither one.

Then why was it written as law?  Is it or was it EVER okay to rape a virgin child so you can force her into marriage?

When would you feel a leading question is an actual argument?

By leading question, you mean one that I knew you would refuse to answer?  It is not leading, it is an actual question, one you will dodge and deflect and do anything except actually answer.

And maybe you should understand that those who don't believe the Bible, don't believe it is the word of God.

  What a stupid statement.

The problem with that is that non-believers spend zero effort in trying to understand what it says.

Survey: Atheists, Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious

The problem is that you make up shit to try and support your beliefs.

Your interpretations are unique.

So you are showing that there are conflicting passages in the bible?  God screwed it up?

You have negated the 10 Commandments?  So we can ignore them?

Indeed, the Bible was written for ancient people.

Alternatively, timeless principles were formatted in such a way as to begin the process of communicating God's character and His expectations concerning humanity. 

This is an unsolvable problem for religious people who consider the Bible divine.

We would disagree. This would be because we don't believe your operating premise is correct. That is:

The problem with sticking strictly to ancient contexts is that the Bible has not been updated to reflect modern mores, values and customs.

Assumes what you wrote previously about the Bible being merely the work of human beings. Since we don't see it that way, we look deeper than you would for meaning and, finding it, know the problem isn't updating the Bible for "modern mores" but, rather, applying timeless truths in an age that rejects truth. 

There is no way to know the'true', 'divine'meaning of scripture so there is no way of knowing which human interpretation is correct (if any).

From our perspective, this rests on your assumption that the Bible is merely the product of human imagination. Since this is so, it doesn't take into account a personal God that wishes to be known and takes steps to ensure that He is. Whatever you think the 'mores' of the Bible is, one cannot read it and not acknowledge that it claims that God will help us to understand. Of course, this is just mere words to you, but we know different. 

Those who claim to hold the true, divine meaning seem to think that they havespecialinsight into the mind of the grandest possible entity (God).   It is more likely that they do not have clue one as to the nature and intent of a divine creator (if one exists).

I always find statements like this one curious. It suggests that knowing God can only ever be a one-sided affair. That is, an entirely human endeavor devoid of any input or effort of God, should He exist, as you put it. It never seems to occur to people who make such statements that God, should He exist, as you put it, could actually take action on His own behalf. As if He were some force incapable of independent action. 

So you are showing that there are conflicting passages in the bible? 

I guess that depends on definitions and purpose of the two testaments.  

God screwed it up?

I'm agnostic.

You have negated the 10 Commandments?  So we can ignore them?

I've negated nothing Ozzie and you can do what you want to and what you can get away with. 

I've always wondered about the application of Matthew 7:6.

Trust me. There's a lot I don't say in here for exactly that reason. To be honest, though, I'm not sure why I reply to these sorts of things. I feel compelled to, but I don't know if it is ego or if it is the Spirit. 

Then why was it written as law?  Is it or was it EVER okay to rape a virgin child so you can force her into marriage?

Why do you insist on wasting time with leading questions? 

By leading question, you mean one that I knew you would refuse to answer?  It is not leading, it is an actual question, one you will dodge and deflect and do anything except actually answer.

No. By 'leading question' I mean a question that assumes the answer before an answer can be given. For example:

Is it or was it EVER okay to rape a virgin child so you can force her into marriage?

This assumes the purpose of the referenced verse was to validate rape as a legitimate method of obtaining a wife. The question only allows a binary choice, yes or no, which only serves the purpose of validating your incorrect view of the referenced verse. In other words, the question only allows an answer you desire, not an answer pertaining to truth. 

The rest of your post isn't worth commenting on. 

God is Spirit. John 4:24:  Spirit is not man. Not flesh or bone. Not temporal.

Numbers 23

19 “God is not a man, that He would lie,

Nor a son of man, that He would change His mind;

Has He said, and will He not do it?

Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? 

Time to let those platitudinal expresses related to deity fall by the wayside, especially if they bother or negate the understanding of what we learn and teach about God.

God is Spirit. And you nor I have any idea of what that really means because our 'books' do not explain what the 'embodiment' of Spirit is. We can discern this, spirit is so much more than man or humanity!

God is. . . God ("I AM").

To be honest, though, I'm not sure why I reply to these sorts of things.

I just looked at that post and thought .... somebody found some list on the internet of intentionally misinterpreted Bible verses specifically geared for angry liberals who don't want to bother to actually learn about the things they condemn.

It's the theological version of trying to explain Magic vs. Bird to a snide Englishman who keeps calling them "netballers".

So a different view on bible verses is Liberals being angry?

Not all people translate ancient writings from ancient men the same...

The series of comments in this thread isn't about different interpretations. 

So a different view on bible verses is Liberals being angry?

An intentional gross misinterpretation of Bible verses solely to attack non-liberal ideology is, yes.  Absolutely.

Not all people translate ancient writings from ancient men the same...

It has nothing to do with translation.  

Why do you label one person's view as a 'gross misrepresentation'?

Is that not that person's view and thought of the scripture?

Why do you label one person's view as a 'gross misrepresentation'?

Perhaps it is because the interpretation seems to reflect more an agenda than any study or actual interest. 

Why do you insist on wasting time with leading questions? 

Because it is a pertinent question and your refusal to answer it just shows how dishonest your argument is.

No. By 'leading question' I mean a question that assumes the answer before an answer can be given. For example: Is it or was it EVER okay to rape a virgin child so you can force her into marriage?

If you believe in god, and believe the bible is the word of god, how can the answer be leading?  Assuming your answer to be "no", would be me assuming that you do not believe in the bible.  I do not assume whether you are a believer or not, so again, your refusal to answer the question shows the dishonesty of your argument.

The question puts you in a lose...lose position.  If you say "No" you have gone against what your god has stated as the law.  If you say "Yes" you will alienate yourself from everyone who sees your answer.  So rather than honestly answering the question, you will deflect and avoid it.

This assumes the purpose of the referenced verse was to validate rape as a legitimate method of obtaining a wife.

The referenced verse speaks for itself, it does not require me to translate.

The question only allows a binary choice, yes or no, which only serves the purpose of validating your incorrect view of the referenced verse.

The question only supports a "Yes" or "No" answer.  But once you provide that "Yes" or "No", there is absolutely nothing preventing you from trying to justify the answer, but first you must provide that "Yes" or "No" answer.  Something you are completely refusing to do.

In other words, the question only allows an answer you desire, not an answer pertaining to truth. 

I don't give a crap which response you provide me, I will respond either way.  The problem is there is no response where you can come out feeling holier than thou.  The bible, and your god, have put you into a biblical Kobayashi Maru and you are stuck with it. 

I could just as easily directed this conversation towards slavery.  The bible supports it, but we are discussing the idiot Cameron and her beliefs towards marriage.

If you believe in god, and believe the bible is the word of god, how can the answer be leading?

You ask me how your question can be leading by asking me a leading question. Seriously, dude, you need to look up what a leading question is. It isn't something I made up. It's a real thing. 

The question puts you in a lose...lose position.  If you say "No" you have gone against what your god has stated as the law.  If you say "Yes" you will alienate yourself from everyone who sees your answer.  

Yes, it does exactly that. That is the purpose of a leading question. "a question that prompts or encourages the desired answer" rather than one that seeks to arrive at some truth. Apparently, in your mind, your view of the disputed verse is... undisputed. You don't seem to understand that it is being disputed. Why this fact escapes you I can't say, but I'm hardly going to answer a question that assumes something that I don't think is true. 

Now, you can frame that as my avoiding your question to your heart's content but the only one who's fooled by that is you and those who equally lack critical thinking skills. 

Alternatively, timeless principles were formatted in such a way as to begin the process of communicating God's character and His expectations concerning humanity. 

The Bible certainly contains timeless principles such as:  "love thy neighbor" and "do not steal", etc.   These principles are, I submit, that which were naturally deduced by civilizations.   

But setting that aside, if one were to abstract fundamental principles from the Bible and not take literally the parables from which they were derived, one could produce a list of timeless principles and argue that these are divine.   There are two immediate problems that I see with this thinking:

1. The process required to derive these principles necessarily produces different and often incompatible interpretations.   
2. Some of the principles derived from the Bible are dangerous.   For example, the principle that it is okay for a human being to own another human being as property even to the point of passing ownership of said human beings to descendants as part of an inheritance.

The problem of which interpretation is correct will always plague your argument, Drakk.   There is no good explanation for why your particular interpretation is correct and others are wrong.   The lack of an authoritative interpreter renders the Bible ambiguous and thus, as an instrument of communicating God's will, it is demonstrably poor.   This demonstrable inability to clearly and consistently communicate to all human beings is undeniable.    Yet you will no doubt deny it.

Assumes what you wrote previously about the Bible being merely the work of human beings. 

Yes.   By default, we all agree that human beings wrote the Bible.   Where we disagree is that you hold the produced words were divinely inspired (meaning:  God was 'whispering in their ears').    Given there is NO evidence of this and quite a bit of evidence against this (contradictions in a perfect, divine work), my assumption follows the evidence and goes no further.   Your assumption goes well beyond the evidence.

Since this is so, it doesn't take into account a personal God that wishes to be known and takes steps to ensure that He is. 

I know, you are one of God's special people and He has taken special measures to ensure that He is known to you.   Too bad God does not offer this service to all Christians so that they all can understand his will.   Too bad He does not do this for all human beings.   

I always find statements like this one curious. It suggests that knowing God can only ever be a one-sided affair. 

Not sure what you thought you were reading here, but when I stated what you quoted:

TiG@1.1.13 ☞ Those who claim to hold the true, divine meaning seem to think that they have special insight into the mind of the grandest possible entity (God).   It is more likely that they do not have clue one as to the nature and intent of a divine creator (if one exists).

I was stating that to tell others what God meant (from the Bible or any other source) is to claim a special understanding of the mind of God.   Goes back to the notion of why you, Drakk, are part of this very tiny select group of individuals who knows the singular true meaning of the messages in the Bible in contrast to the countless billions of people in history who were wrong.

What is most likely, based on what is reliably known, is that nobody knows anything about the nature and intent of a divine creator.    We truly do not even know if one exists.

From our perspective, this rests on your assumption that the Bible is merely the product of human imagination. Since this is so, it doesn't take into account a personal God that wishes to be known and takes steps to ensure that He is. Whatever you think the 'mores' of the Bible is, one cannot read it and not acknowledge that it claims that God will help us to understand.

Since you persist in being "high and mighty" peek this:

Our protestant bible is curated and so are our many denominations curated . There are different bible allowances for content (for example, Ethiopian Bible , Catholic Bible , Eastern Orthodoxy Bible , Protestant bible and its thousands of denominations, and so on and so forth).

So what is really happening here, assuming you are a protestant bible believer as I am, we are really just 'channeling' its 66 books—not even in 'step' with what world-wide believers are absolutely studying and 'ingesting' for faith and life. The Ethiopian Bible* is oldest and complete with its 80 plus books . . .and the Eastern Orthodox Bible** relies on church authority more that its biblical text.

Just for starters. . . . 

Some humility is called for as we can not know or agree on all of it, because we only have what we 'have .'

*  ocl

** museumofthebible

The Bible certainly contains timeless principles such as:  "love thy neighbor" and "do not steal", etc.   These principles are, I submit, that which were naturally deduced by civilizations. 

what is relevant isn't that civilizations would naturally deduce such principles but, rather, why they would be principles in the first place, especially if one assumes a purposeless existence as proposed by naturalism. If such principles exist for civilizations to deduce, from whence to they come? Why is "love thy neighbor" generally accepted to be of more value to a civilization than "take what you can"? Why, in fact, is humanity concerned with morality at all? 

But setting that aside, if one were to abstract fundamental principles from the Bible and not take literally the parables from which they were derived...

Not certain what this means...

one could produce a list of timeless principles and argue that these are divine.

... but I'm not sure this would be the immediately relevant argument. Rather, if one concludes that such principles were timeless, meaning applicable to all times and places, one would have to wonder why this would be, in my view. That is, for considering what principles are timeless, that they appear in the Bible would be a consideration for later. One would first have to come to the conclusion that, whatever it may be, morality must exist in some form that isn't attributable to human preference. If one concludes that morality is simply human invention, or convention, then what the Bible has to say about it is irrelevant to that individual and there's no point in going further. 

However, if one concludes, for whatever reason, that morality exists apart from human desires, then one can look for the source of morality, the Bible being one such source. 

The process required to derive these principles necessarily produces different and often incompatible interpretations.

Without further explanation, this is too vague to respond to. I understand and accept that different interpretations will be arrived at. What is vague is the process to which you refer. 

Some of the principles derived from the Bible are dangerous.   For example, the principle that it is okay for a human being to own another human being as property even to the point of passing ownership of said human beings to descendants as part of an inheritance.

While this doesn't speak to process, it does speak to incompatible interpretations, although not in the sense you intended. For instance, I do not interpret the Bible as saying it is okay for one human being to own another in the sense slavery implies. I understand the danger to which you refer, as American history has shown the use of scripture to defend slavery. However, the mere fact of this doesn't confirm such interpretations. 

 Or, perhaps, your comment does speak to process on some level. In my opinion, your view of the Bible's treatment of slavery is rather sterile. It simply takes the concept, without consideration of any other factor, such as context, and pronounces judgment upon it, while my view of the subject considers slavery within the context of God and what He is accomplishing. This, of course, would create very different interpretations. 

The problem of which interpretation is correct will always plague your argument, Drakk.   There is no good explanation for why your particular interpretation is correct and others are wrong.   The lack of an authoritative interpreter renders the Bible ambiguous and thus, as an instrument of communicating God's will, it is demonstrably poor.   This demonstrable inability to clearly and consistently communicate to all human beings is undeniable.    Yet you will no doubt deny it.

No, I won't deny it. However, the reason would not be for the one's you list in this paragraph. The reason is that, from my perspective, you seem to think the problem lies with the Bible and the God it purports to speak for, while I believe the problem lies with the people who read it. Because you view the Bible in the manner you do, you ignore the premise in the Bible that there is something seriously wrong with the human condition and that this is responsible for what you describe as " the Bible ambiguous and thus, as an instrument of communicating God's will " as being "demonstratably poor".

From this post, and comments you've made in the past, it is apparently your position that a real God would overcome such shortcomings on our part and make us understand. Is that not what an omnipotent God would do, would be the argument. This view, however, is simply a human idea of what they would do if they were God without explanation of why God would necessarily act in such a manner. Worse, it treats God as something like a natural force rather than an individual with goals of His own. 

Yes.   By default, we all agree that human beings wrote the Bible.   Where we disagree is that you hold the produced words were divinely inspired (meaning:  God was 'whispering in their ears').    Given there is NO evidence of this and quite a bit of evidence against this (contradictions in a perfect, divine work), my assumption follows the evidence and goes no further.   Your assumption goes well beyond the evidence.

You present contradictions as a given when they are not, hence your use of "given". And any true Christian, meaning one who knows God personally, would tell you they have all the evidence they need. Of course, that's meaningless to you, since it can't be objectively examined. Understandable, given your worldview. What prevents you from seeing what we do is that you don't understand what God wants from us. A personal relationship. For you, it's measurable, objectively provable facts and nothing else. The god you would accept would be measurable, objective, quantifiable and explainable. Something that was within your intellectual capacity to comprehend. You will of course deny this, but it is true. 

I know, you are one of God's special people and He has taken special measures to ensure that He is known to you.   Too bad God does not offer this service to all Christians so that they all can understand his will.   Too bad He does not do this for all human beings.

This would be incorrect. God doesn't show favoritism. 

Not sure what you thought you were reading here, but when I stated what you quoted: TiG @1.1.13 ☞ Those who claim to hold the true, divine meaning seem to think that they have special insight into the mind of the grandest possible entity (God).   It is more likely that they do not have clue one as to the nature and intent of a divine creator (if one exists). I was stating that to tell others what God meant (from the Bible or any other source) is to claim a special understanding of the mind of God.   Goes back to the notion of why you, Drakk, are part of this very tiny select group of individuals who knows the singular true meaning of the messages in the Bible in contrast to the countless billions of people in history who were wrong.

I don't know why you think this invalidates what I said. You appear to take issue with my saying I understand what the Bible and what God wants, as if this were hubris of some sort. As if what I believe about the Bible comes from me, personally. It doesn't leave room for the possibility that it comes from God because He has taken the effort to reveal it. 

Even so, even if I am deluded on what I believe, it is inarguable that the writers of the Bible intended to communicate an idea or ideas. Even atheistic Professors of religion would tell you that my interpretations, generally, are correct. Although they see the Bible as simply an influential work of man, they would tell you that the writers of it weren't simply writing incoherent sentences or ideas. They would tell you the same theological ideas that I tell you. This is because words have meaning and context is a real thing. 

What is most likely, based on what is reliably known, is that nobody knows anything about the nature and intent of a divine creator.    We truly do not even know if one exists.

I understand this is your opinion. I know it isn't true.

Yes, it does exactly that. That is the purpose of a leading question.

Again, it is not a leading question, it is a very pertinent one.  You have learned the lesson that you cannot have your cake and eat it too.  You can accept your religion, and the bible, or not.  Your refusal to answer a very simple question just shows that you need to sit down, and educate yourself on your own beliefs.

The fact that you obviously disagree with your religion's laws, yet refuse to admit that your bible is wrong, puts you in the same group as people blindly following what they are told to follow.

Last chance, lets make it a completely different question.  Do you believe the bible is the word of god?

Simple non-leading question, even by your extremely loose definition of "leading question".

This view, however, is simply a human idea of what they would do if they were God without explanation of why God would necessarily act in such a manner. Worse, it treats God as something like a natural force rather than an individual with goals of His own. 

Wow. That ignores the fact that our physical protestant bible to which we dedicate our religious lives and understanding of spirituality to was declared complete by a Council. And it was not received whole but 'compacted' from many writers across many spanning years and declared "inspired" because something needed to 'complete' a desire for something "sacred." In a real sense, the bible has been made 'holy' by the will of human declaration and the spanning of time.

I can accept this about my holy book, because it altered/alters my existence in some truly positive ways, but we must be true to the processes which get us to where we are. Both, can be true: What is written down and how it comes into being.

The Bible declares God is Spirit (not a "natural force") and the Bible speaks of the anthropomorphic God (relating human characteristics to the deity) because otherwise humanity can not understand or reply to God at all when God 'speaks' in a divine 'tongue.' Humans have not divine language articulation abilities.

Thus, our religion is a construct. One for which we choose to live through another construct: Faith.

I am okay with that. What I am not okay with is believers ignoring, dismissing, and flat out denying the processes which give us what we belief. And in the process, trapping their minds into writing things which can be found 'wanting' simply by drilling down on it.

This finally. I know in "whom" I believe and I know why I believe it. I know why I continue to have faith in it. I am not skimming across the surface of faith and drinking spiritual 'milk' where spiritual 'meat' is meant to better serve and provide spiritual 'nutrition.'

The god you would accept would be measurable, objective, quantifiable and explainable. Something that was within your intellectual capacity to comprehend. You will of course deny this, but it is true. 

Of course, such a God would be limited and an impossibility. That is, what mind design would a human require to entirely and wholly comprehend God. By this definition, Christians have not wholly comprehended God, either. We have to be humbly silent where God has not revealed a thing to us. Thus, we won't be considered foolish and willing to suggest and 'confirm' just anything. Even worse, found 'wanting' in discussing what we simply can not explain.

what is relevant isn't that civilizations would naturally deduce such principles but, rather, why they would be principles in the first place, especially if one assumes a purposeless existence as proposed by naturalism.

I consider it wrong to kill someone and I am not convinced any god exists.   I see great value in life (accomplishments, learning, teaching, relationships, etc.).   One need not hold a belief in a god to see and realize purpose in life.    

If such principles exist for civilizations to deduce, from whence to they come? Why is "love thy neighbor" generally accepted to be of more value to a civilization than "take what you can"? Why, in fact, is humanity concerned with morality at all? 

Societies evolve mores, values & customs because they see (through trial and error) what tends to cause harm and what tends to cause good.   

Rather, if one concludes that such principles were timeless, meaning applicable to all times and places, one would have to wonder why this would be, in my view. 

There are very few timeless, context-independent principles and I suspect there are always exceptions.   For example, one principle is that it is wrong to molest children.   That is probably as universal and timeless as it comes.   Parents who protected their children passed those protective genes on.   Those who did not had extinct lines.   It is a natural by-product of biology that extant species protect their offspring.   It should come as no surprise that a society of individuals genetically predisposed to protecting offspring would find molesting children to be wrong.

What is vague is the process to which you refer. 

The process is a collective reference to the various methods of exegesis.

For instance, I do not interpret the Bible as saying it is okay for one human being to own another in the sense slavery implies.

Yet others do.   Why are you correct?   And in this case, why are you correct given your interpretation directly contradicts scripture such as Leviticus 25:44:

44 And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves.   45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property.   46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit   them as   a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

One of many passages speaking of owning human beings as property / possession and, in this case, allowing them to be part of the inheritance you pass to your children.

You inexplicably do not interpret this as a right to owning human beings as property.   So why is your bizarre interpretation correct and others are not?

It simply takes the concept, without consideration of any other factor, such as context, and pronounces judgment upon it, while my view of the subject considers slavery within the context of God and what He is accomplishing.

If you want to play the context card then you need to explain the context under which God deems owning a human being as property to be moral.    Should we consider slavery to be moral today?   At what point in history did slavery become immoral, per God?   How do you know?   Or do you hold that God considers slavery moral even today?

From this post, and comments you've made in the past, it is apparently your position that a real God would overcome such shortcomings on our part and make us understand. 

Understood, but that does not answer my question:  "why is your particular interpretation correct and all others incorrect?"

You present contradictions as a given when they are not, hence your use of "given". 

Because they are a given.   You dismiss them by leaping to a 'greater context' argument coupled with 'who are you to presuppose how God thinks and works?' notion which basically amounts to 'the Lord works in mysterious ways'.    That, I submit, is just kidding yourself.   The most blatant contradiction of the Bible is that it defines an omniscient God who is angered, surprised, disappointed, persuaded, etc.   All these things are impossible if God already knows everything that will happen in the future.   Your past arguments basically claim that what looks like 'anger', 'surprise', 'disappointment', 'being persuaded', etc. is just God relating to us in terms we can understand.   How you can think that such an argument is persuasive is remarkable.   It is not; not even close.   It is more of the 'you just do not understand God' argument which, by the way, implies that you do understand the mind of the grandest possible entity.  

You appear to take issue with my saying I understand what the Bible and what God wants, as if this were hubris of some sort.

I assure you, I am not the only person who finds it extraordinary that someone would claim to understand the mind of the grandest possible entity.

As if what I believe about the Bible comes from me, personally. It doesn't leave room for the possibility that it comes from God because He has taken the effort to reveal it. 

Sure, I even noted this.   I asked why you, Drakk, are so chosen.   Why did you get the revelation memo when so many other Christians, Muslims, etc.  did not as evidenced by them holding beliefs that differ from yours?

Even so, even if I am deluded on what I believe, it is inarguable that the writers of the Bible intended to communicate an idea or ideas. Even atheistic Professors of religion would tell you that my interpretations, generally, are correct. Although they see the Bible as simply an influential work of man, they would tell you that the writers of it weren't simply writing incoherent sentences or ideas. They would tell you the same theological ideas that I tell you. This is because words have meaning and context is a real thing. 

This is a claim that you would need to detail.   Just telling me that biblical scholars and/or theologians hold that your interpretations of the Bible are correct is an empty claim.   

They would tell you the same theological ideas that I tell you. This is because words have meaning and context is a real thing. 

And were any one today to attempt to live a life expressly of 'countless' centuries ago, they would lose contact and sensitivity with the world around them, no? God undoubtedly would not wish that to occur, in my opinion.

I consider it wrong to kill someone and I am not convinced any god exists.

Why do you consider it wrong to kill someone?

Again, it is not a leading question,

Then, once again, you don't know what a leading question is. I suggest you educate yourself. 

Why do you consider it wrong to kill someone?

Because I don't want to be killed....

So, for you, it isn't an issue of morality but, rather, self interest?

Mostly. I don't want to be killed, you don't want to be killed, let's make a pact to where we won't kill each other....

Why do you consider it wrong to kill someone?

Note that there are exceptions (e.g. it is morally right to kill someone who is going to kill an innocent human being if there is no other choice).   But in general, it is wrong to kill someone because it brings harm to them.    So, for example, it is wrong for a sniper to target a random pedestrian and murder them because the act (as I described it) has no justification that overrides the harm that it brings.

In general terms (at a principled level):  doing net harm = bad

One would disagree with you.    Using something one doesn’t believe is real, to make a point, is simply intellectually dishonest.

Nothing more need be said about that

Using something one doesn’t believe is real, to make a point, is simply intellectually dishonest.

That cliché rebuttal is truly stupid.

You do not hold Islamic beliefs, so would it be intellectually dishonest for you to quote from the Qur'an to make a point?

You do not believe that Darth Vader or Yoda exists, but if making a point about who would win in a lightsaber fight would it be intellectually dishonest to refer to the Star War movies and supporting books?

You do not believe Zeus is real but when making a point in reference to his claimed omnipotence would it be intellectually dishonest for you to refer to Greek mythology.

Get a better rebuttal; the "you have to believe in something to make a point referring to it" is pathetic.

You inexplicably do not interpret this as a right to owning human beings as property.   So why is your bizarre interpretation correct and others are not?

This is a misleading representation of my position. Leviticus 25:44-46 clearly allows the acquiring slaves under certain conditions. I haven't ever said otherwise. To be more clear, God obviously allows slavery in Israel. My position, correctly stated, is that although He allows it doesn't necessarily mean He approves of it. 

If you want to play the context card then you need to explain the context under which God deems owning a human being as property to be moral.

No, actually, I don't. This would be because the question isn't whether God deems owning one image of God owning another image of God as property is moral or not. The question answers itself. The relevant question is, why would God allow Israel to hold slaves when slavery doesn't meet His moral standards? This is why I said the following about your position.

It simply takes the concept, without consideration of any other factor, such as context, and pronounces judgment upon it, while my view of the subject considers slavery within the context of God and what He is accomplishing.

That is, your concerns are human centered while mine tend to center on God and why He does what He does. While 

Understood, but that does not answer my question:  "why is your particular interpretation correct and all others incorrect?"

Well, I don't think my interpretation is all that 'particular'. That is, generally, my position is pretty much the same as any other practicing Christian. But if I understand the intent behind the question, you are asking what makes the interpretation I believe is correct right as opposed to someone like CB, who I think gets it very wrong. 

If that is what you're asking the answer is both simple and more complex than I can probably explain satisfactorily to a non-believer. At least, in this venue. But I will attempt to give you the bare bones of the answer. 

Logically, there is a correct interpretation. The writers of the Bible intended to convey information about their subject and so, logically, interpretations that most closely match that intent are going to be more correct than interpretations that do not.

There is a maxim concerning interpreting the Bible. It can be stated in various ways but, generally, it states that the best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible. Basically, it means that if one's interpretation of a verse contradicts a verse somewhere else, that interpretation is wrong. 

Because they are a given.   You dismiss them by leaping to a 'greater context' argument coupled with 'who are you to presuppose how God thinks and works?' notion which basically amounts to 'the Lord works in mysterious ways'.

They are not a given as I don't recognize them as contradictions. Therefore, all you are doing is dismissing that fact and continuing on as if we all know I'm just pretending or something. That is disingenuous. And I do not, nor have I ever, gave as a defense 'who are you to presuppose how God thinks and works'.

The most blatant contradiction of the Bible is that it defines an omniscient God who is angered, surprised, disappointed, persuaded, etc.   All these things are impossible if God already knows everything that will happen in the future.   Your past arguments basically claim that what looks like 'anger', 'surprise', 'disappointment', 'being persuaded', etc. is just God relating to us in terms we can understand.   How you can think that such an argument is persuasive is remarkable.   It is not; not even close.   It is more of the 'you just do not understand God' argument which, by the way, implies that you do understand the mind of the grandest possible entity.  

It isn't a matter of whether it's persuasive. Is it logical? You put God in terms of the 'Grandest possible entity'. What, exactly, would that mean? What would be the mind of such a Being and how much of it could we actually understand? I don't know what passes for thought processes in an ant, but whatever it may be, how much comprehension of a human mind could it grasp? How would whatever may pass for anger in an ant compare to anger in a human mind? The point is, how does a human mind go about understanding the 'grandest possible entity' with such a limited mind? 

The answer is, God speaks to us on our level, using terms we can understand, to get some idea of a being we can't possibly fully grasp. As I'm sure you know, God is described as a Spirit. That is, not possessing any physical characteristics yet in the Bible, both people and God Himself ascribe physical traits to Him. In other words we, and God, anthropomorphize God, not because He actually has those attributes, but because it brings a concept in a manner humans can understand about a Being too vast to comprehend. 

God's expressed emotions are the same thing, only it's called anthropopathism rather than anthropomorphism. It is ascribing human emotions to God, not God expressing human emotions, for the purpose of understanding some concept on a level we can understand. 

How you can think that such an argument is persuasive is remarkable.

It is less about being persuasive and more about common sense. Unless your idea of the grandest possible entity is modeled on yourself, you must recognize that such a being would be incomprehensible to us unless that entity took pains to reveal itself to us and in a manner that we can hold within our mind. Unless it did, we might deduce certain things about it from the observable universe, like it apparently favors order, but not much else. 

which, by the way, implies that you do understand the mind of the grandest possible entity.  

This isn't the first time you've said something like this. I find it curious. To my mind, it seems to assume that what I believe about God was arrived at simply through my own mental efforts. Understandable, given your view of the subject. However, I don't claim to know the mind of God. I claim to know some things about what He has revealed about Himself, what He wants and what my purpose is in all of that. I believe that I know these things primarily because of His efforts, not mine. The relevant point here is that you don't seem to think God, or the Grandest possible Entity, could desire to reveal Himself to us and take steps to ensure we can understand. That is, you don't seem to consider knowing God could be two sided rather than simply human effort alone. 

Sure, I even noted this.   I asked why you, Drakk, are so chosen.   Why did you get the revelation memo when so many other Christians, Muslims, etc.  did not as evidenced by them holding beliefs that differ from yours?

I don't think so. The purpose of this question seems to be more "if God revealed Himself then why doesn't everyone see it?" That is, if God is actually God, then He would ensure that everyone would unambiguously ensure everyone got the same 'memo'. It doesn't seem to recognize that God plays an active role in humans understanding Him. 

As for literally answering your question, I don't know why anyone is chosen by God over others. You'd have to ask Him. From a human perspective, I don't know how He can even tolerate my existence, let alone save me. But, I think it has something to do with humility. God showed me who I really am in light of His perfection and I accepted it as fact. I don't like who I am. I want to be like Jesus. Perhaps that is what God is looking for. 

Or you could just go with the Calvinist view and it was simply a random choice on God's part in a program God coded and is now running toward some conclusion, something I do not believe. 

This is a claim that you would need to detail.   Just telling me that biblical scholars and/or theologians hold that your interpretations of the Bible are correct is an empty claim.

Reading Bart Ehrman would be suggested, then, or perhaps looking at some YouTube vids where he speaks. 

That is, generally, my position is pretty much the same as any other practicing Christian. But if I understand the intent behind the question, you are asking what makes the interpretation I believe is correct right as opposed to someone like CB, who I think gets it very wrong. 

Drakk', it is not my issue or concern what interpretation you believe. That is entirely up to you as par and parcel of personal Christian liberty. The interesting thing is this: God has not declared a thing to you or me so being we have to conclude something we are left to figure it all out on our own or as members of a community of believers.

And we do so from texts that in actually been proven to be constructs put together and canonized. We have to remember where the heart of our faith resides - while we lay 'flesh' over our faith each succeeding generations after generations: past, present, and future.

I believe in God. But, I will not let my belief deceive, delude, or give me false reasons for hope in God. We can have our faith and still be honest and most importantly real about where it sprang!

 What would be the mind of such a Being and how much of it could we actually understand? I don't know what passes for thought processes in an ant, but whatever it may be, how much comprehension of a human mind could it grasp? How would whatever may pass for anger in an ant compare to anger in a human mind? The point is, how does a human mind go about understanding the 'grandest possible entity' with such a limited mind? 

Well stated. A good consideration. A better 'Ask.'

The answer is, God speaks to us on our level, using terms we can understand, to get some idea of a being we can't possibly fully grasp. As I'm sure you know, God is described as a Spirit. That is, not possessing any physical characteristics yet in the Bible, both people and God Himself ascribe physical traits to Him. In other words we, and God, anthropomorphize God, not because He actually has those attributes, but because it brings a concept in a manner humans can understand about a Being too vast to comprehend.  God's expressed emotions are the same thing, only it's called anthropopathism rather than anthropomorphism. It is ascribing human emotions to God, not God expressing human emotions, for the purpose of understanding some concept on a level we can understand. 

Good and solid reasoning, "together."

It is less about being persuasive and more about common sense. Unless your idea of the grandest possible entity is modeled on yourself, you must recognize that such a being would be incomprehensible to us unless that entity took pains to reveal itself to us and in a manner that we can hold within our mind. Unless it did, we might deduce certain things about it from the observable universe, like it apparently favors order, but not much else. 

This may come off (at first glance anyway) as similar to snark. It is not.  But discernment from the bible, especially as time progresses forward, will involve common sense analysis of the Bible we read. For none of us living can return to the 'womb' of the apostle's to ask for their revised, corrected, or rational meaning of how they formulated their texts. Most of those apostles, tradition tells us died untimely deaths, for which they did not take the time or live long lives enough to refresh or 'rework' from a spiritual point of view of course!

So we who are alive today and who are living longer lives than a high percentage of those writers, must use common sense to hold our faith together as we age. For we are dynamic creatures and we feel, suffer, and experience joy similar and at the same time different from the apostles. We're on our own in the here and now; we must make live livable and 'faith-worthy' at the same time.

Note: This comment is somewhat vague possibly; but I need to get it out for consideration at this juncture, nevertheless.

You continue to provide evidence as to why we are not brothers in Christ. There is no revision required by either us or the Apostles. God is unchanging, therefore there is no need to "refresh" or "rework" what they wrote other than a human endeavor to change who God is in order to suit one's own desires. You are leading people astray and if you don't repent of it you will pay a very heavy price for it. 

You're over qualifying your statement. There's no trap here. In spite of that, I take it that you do believe there is a right and a wrong, a good and a bad. For instance, it sounds as if you believe there's no good argument for a sniper to target random pedestrian in any situation. That is, just killing someone without reason or purpose beyond possible personal satisfaction of some sort, which I will assume you would agree, isn't sufficient justification when dealing with the morality of it. 

So, if I understand you correctly you believe there is a thing called morality, however loosely defined or arrived at, that applies to all or, at least, should. Of course, I recognize that we differ on where morality comes from. For you, it seems to be an evolutionary mechanism, as you indicate in 1.1.43 .

On the surface, the argument seems reasonable, but beyond that it doesn't seem supportable. First, if morality is an evolutionary mechanism, it is one unrealistically narrowly applicable. That is, it only seems to apply to us rather than the animal kingdom as a whole. One could argue that higher order animals, such as primates and cetaceans exhibit traits of morality but the problem there is we can't know whether or not we are anthropomorphizing their actions without them being able to articulate why they took the actions they did. 

Second, morality as a survival mechanism is somewhat of an oxymoron in that morality often results in actions not conductive to survival or passing on genes beneficial to the species. Someone who sacrifices oneself for the sake of another doesn't guarantee, or even suggest, that the best genes are being passed on. In fact, if sacrificing oneself for the sake of others is a morally good thing and evolutionarily desirable, then dying actually thwarts beneficial aspects of morality as it relates to evolution, as there is no obvious connection between the sacrifice and that those saved will pass genes associated with dying for the greater good. 

The third reason relates to the first. If morality is an evolutionary mechanism designed for evolutionary purposes and it does indeed only narrowly apply to us because we have the cognitive ability to recognize the concept whereas other members of the animal kingdom do not, why is our concept of morality unattached to the concept of survival and/or improvement of the species? Why is eugenics not the universal religion of the human species? If evolution is the driving force behind life, then eugenics simply makes sense. Morality would consist of whatever actions produced a more successful human. Basically, something like the world depicted in the film "Gattaca". 

Yet, this is not what we see concerning the morality question. Rather, morality tells us that every individual has value, if even only potentially. If morality is simply an evolutionary mechanism, it should program us to do nothing other than to loath a Down's syndrome person, yet that isn't what we see. Or take someone like Donald Trump. Most find him morally repugnant, but why? If morality is simply an evolutionary mechanism, he's certainly successful. He's passed on his genes. He lives a successful life materially. If morality is simply an evolutionary mechanism then it makes no sense to describe him as immoral. 

My position, correctly stated, is that although He allows it doesn't necessarily mean He approves of it. 

God (ostensibly) allows slavery and even makes rules for it.   So He allows it, makes rules for it, but does not approve of it.   And nowhere in the Bible does God even hint that owning another human being as property is immoral.   Yet He is more than happy to rule harshly on homosexual acts.

Importantly, you do not know God's position on slavery.   And that is honest.   There is no way you could possibly know.   The best you could do is look at the 'evidence' (per the Bible) and deduce that since God routinely allowed and made rules for slavery and never said it was immoral that he likely holds it as moral.

The question answers itself. The relevant question is, why would God allow Israel to hold slaves when slavery doesn't meet His moral standards? 

And never offering a 'thou shalt not own human beings as property' commandment (or equivalent).

That is, your concerns are human centered while mine tend to center on God and why He does what He does. 

That is a non-answer.    It does not answer why God allows slavery if he considers it immoral.   It does not answer any question, really.   It is akin to 'the lord works in mysterious ways'.

That is, generally, my position is pretty much the same as any other practicing Christian. 

Christians have certain views in common (e.g. Love thy Neighbor, Jesus as Savior, etc.).   But it would be dishonest to ignore the many differences among Christians in terms of relevant interpretation of the Bible (e.g. moral concerns, God's omniscience, creation, Noah's ark:  fable or fact, etc.).   You and CB are prime examples of the difference in interpretation.

Logically, there is a correct interpretation. The writers of the Bible intended to convey information about their subject and so, logically, interpretations that most closely match that intent are going to be more correct than interpretations that do not.

Logically only if there really is a God who guided the writings of ancient men.   If there is no such entity then logically there are many interpretations due to a) vague language and b) the desire of believers to make the Bible consistent in spite of itself.

There is a maxim concerning interpreting the Bible. It can be stated in various ways but, generally, it states that the best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible. Basically, it means that if one's interpretation of a verse contradicts a verse somewhere else, that interpretation is wrong. 

Trouble is, when contradictions occur you, et. al. engage in mental gymnastics to 'fix' them.   For example, when I note that a perfect, omniscient God cannot logically be surprised, disappointed, angered, persuaded, etc. because all those necessarily require new information, your response is that God really is not surprised, etc. but rather that He is using those emotional references to relate to human beings:  to put things in terms we can understand.   And then you wonder why your arguments are not persuasive.

You put God in terms of the 'Grandest possible entity'. What, exactly, would that mean? 

Not sure why this would concern you.   If I used the term 'supreme entity' would you be okay?   I am making the point that we are talking about knowing the mind of an entity that is the absolute pinnacle of intellect.    It is absurd to think that any of us could possibly know the mind of such an entity and thus be able to produce the true, complete, detailed interpretation of His word.

The answer is, God speaks to us on our level, using terms we can understand, to get some idea of a being we can't possibly fully grasp. 

Yet, in this example, the downgrading of language produces an entirely false connotation.   When God is said to be disappointed, if that does not mean that He would have hoped for a better result than what He observed, then why even express the idea?   It is misleading, for example, to communicate this to the masses:

Genesis 6:6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

The Lord knew what human beings were going to do so there is nothing to regret.   God knew what humans would do before he created them.   And there is no reason to be deeply troubled.   If I knowingly open myself for an extremely obvious checkmate in one, I would not be disappointed when my opponent makes the checkmate move.   Nor will I regret that I set the chessboard for that move.   I knew what would happen and I chose the circumstances to make it happen.   It would be irrational for me to regret what I did, be disappointed that my opponent did what I set him up to do, and then take the chessboard in anger and toss it into the fireplace ... and then promise to never do that again.   Given that I was fully aware of the mate-in-one, if I did not want it to happen, I would have not created the circumstance where it would happen.

You are here denying what is written by changing the meaning of the words used.    With that level of poetic license, one can make the Bible say almost anything (and that is exactly what happens).

It is ascribing human emotions to God, not God expressing human emotions, for the purpose of understanding some concept on a level we can understand. 

And, as I noted above, the resultant understanding is false.   It would be better for this scripture:

Genesis 6:5  The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 6:6  The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

Genesis 6:7  So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

to read:

Genesis 6:5  The LORD, [noted] the great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 6:6  The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

Genesis 6:7  So the LORD said, “I will [now] wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—as per my plan for I regret that I have made them.”

It is wrong to present this as though God did not know that the human race would become 'wicked' in His eyes so why even go there?   Just be honest.   God planned all along to wipe out the human race, et. al. with a great flood because of the wicked state of human beings at that time.   Just state it.   People would understand that in simply, clear terms.

Unless your idea of the grandest possible entity is modeled on yourself, you must recognize that such a being would be incomprehensible to us unless that entity took pains to reveal itself to us and in a manner that we can hold within our mind.

Not so hard.   You make it sound as though what God wishes to reveal (per your beliefs) is extraordinarily complicated.   And that God downgrades language to the point of entirely missing the point.   So what does that accomplish (see above)?   Explain why God does not simply express his relevant messages in plain language that all can understand rather than use vague and sometimes bizarre language that results in all sorts of misinterpretation?   It the ideas are too complex for us to understand, expressing them with language that misses the point (e.g. speaking of God regretting creation), then that worsens the situation.   If the ideas cannot be communicated then they can never be acted upon.   Vague, misleading language is logically counter-productive.

Your argument is lacking.

To my mind, it seems to assume that what I believe about God was arrived at simply through my own mental efforts. Understandable, given your view of the subject. However, I don't claim to know the mind of God. I claim to know some things about what He has revealed about Himself, what He wants and what my purpose is in all of that. I believe that I know these things primarily because of His efforts, not mine. The relevant point here is that you don't seem to think God, or the Grandest possible Entity, could desire to reveal Himself to us and take steps to ensure we can understand. That is, you don't seem to consider knowing God could be two sided rather than simply human effort alone. 

You, whether you recognize this or not, consider yourself special.   (And I do not mean to imply that you are doing this arrogantly;  I think it is innocent on your part.)   You believe that God has reached out to you more than to the supermajority of people who have lived on this planet.   And I know you will tell me that this is because of your efforts to reach out to Him, but that does not change the fact that you actually think you know the mind of what would be the supreme entity because of a) the Bible and b) the Holy Spirit working through you. 

Countless others make the same claim and they have different interpretations of 'God's mind'.   Why do you think you are correct and they are not?

I understand that your answer is 'I do not know why God chose me'.   And that is fair, I did not expect you to answer.   My question was designed to illustrate a striking flaw in your logic.   Why is what you 'know' truth when so many others who think God chose them think they 'know' truth yet the truths differ?   

Reading Bart Ehrman would be suggested ...

Are you suggesting your views correlate with Bart Ehrman's?

Drakk', I don't care that you think I am not your 'brother in Christ.' So get over that on your own.  . . . .  As to the rest of your comment: You don't have a heaven or a hell to put anybody in, so your concern is unremarkable.

Carry whatever ideology you don't dare to make plain as far as you can. . . talk from your 'ivory tower' about God as though this is all some academic matter. Well, "dude" I live in the real world— the world that God keeps us all in the: good, bad, and ugly. I have no concern as to where you will end up. And the good news: Your eternal salvation is determined by God and not by me, a mere man. You should learn that lesson today while it is today.

One more thing: You appear here to 'hold' court with long sweeping comments about 'high and lifted' up matters of religion on which you ground in little or nothing of self. And yet, God did not make us automatons to just 'do.' God meets us where we are! God finds us where we were!

Now then you may have been a believer since childhood or some such period for which you are so 'closed' that you don't dare mention. . . , but that is not the case with me. I am open and bold in my faith. I make my Christian CONFESSION here quite often: I was raised Christian in a Baptist home and left the Church, because I could not stay there, upon discovering my sexual self, and finally returned to Christian faith in my late thirties.

So I know what it is to be in the Church-the World-and back 'home.' However, I do not come back to faith bowed, beaten, or afflicted. I come open, honest, and able to go deeper still because I am grounded in something you can't or won't deem to relate to or simply understand. Bet this: I am most definitely a better person than I was when I was in the world and that is saying something, because generally I am a good person period!

In closing, God finds sinners to make saints out of. God is not petty. At least, my God is not petty, because my God saves complicated people and expects them to continue on in living after having done so. I stand as a homosexual male who lives in faith to God and yes that incorporates a degree of suffering to live 'alone.' But, you can think anything you want about it, me, or whatever. I simply don't have the time, energy, or luxury to care about any of that.

Why do you label one person's view as a 'gross misrepresentation'?

Because it is.  Declaring meaning without any acknowledgment of the context of events is gross misinterpretation.  Interpreting those verses in the context of a modern, information-age economy is utterly asinine.  It's so completely asinine there almost isn't any way it wasn't done intentionally.

Is that not that person's view and thought of the scripture?

If, for example, someone had a "personal view and thought" that Ulysses Grant was a Confederate sympathizer because he refused to use helicopters in battle, you would call that person a moron.  Or at least you should.   

You should also realize immediately that the person clearly has some sort of mental-illness-level irrational hatred of Ulysses Grant and they don't give a flying fuck about what actually happened.

Transfer that idea to Moses and Mosaic law, and here we are.

You're over qualifying your statement. There's no trap here.

I gave you a full answer; I figured you would prefer that to something brief.   Why do you think I am concerned about a trap?   For the record, I am never concerned about a trap because I have thought through my positions on this subject much deeper than what I end up writing.   Further I am not trying to hide any flaws in my reasoning so no fear of a trap.

In spite of that, I take it that you do believe there is a right and a wrong, a good and a bad.

Yes, I call it morality.   And the only morality that we experience as human beings is subjective morality.   And subjective morality differs per society / culture / group.

For instance, it sounds as if you believe there's no good argument for a sniper to target random pedestrian in any situation.

We can always add more information to a scenario to get the result we desire.   My statement is true in general, but we could add context such as the sniper killing a random pedestrian in order to create panic to make a crowd disperse before a bomb explodes right next to where the pedestrian was walking.   In this contrived case, the killing of one saved the lives of many.

So, if I understand you correctly you believe there is a thing called morality, however loosely defined or arrived at, that applies to all or, at least, should. Of course, I recognize that we differ on where morality comes from. For you, it seems to be an evolutionary mechanism, as you indicate in  1.1.43  .

Morality is not a single thing.   Morality varies as noted above.   And yes, the base of morality is a result of biological evolution and the balance is an emergent factor of societal evolution.

On the surface, the argument seems reasonable, but beyond that it doesn't seem supportable.

First, if morality is an evolutionary mechanism, it is one unrealistically narrowly applicable. That is, it only seems to apply to us rather than the animal kingdom as a whole.

Who said that?   Parent animals typically protect their young.   In very different ways at times.

One could argue that higher order animals, such as primates and cetaceans exhibit traits of morality but the problem there is we can't know whether or not we are anthropomorphizing their actions without them being able to articulate why they took the actions they did. 

My argument, however, was that extant species necessarily protect their young.   Otherwise the would be extinct.

Second, morality as a survival mechanism is somewhat of an oxymoron in that morality often results in actions not conductive to survival or passing on genes beneficial to the species. 

The fact that beings will ALSO engage in 'moral' behaviors that do not directly ensure survival of the species is NOT an argument that survival of the species is NOT a basis for morality.   Slight of hand.   Don't do that.

Someone who sacrifices oneself for the sake of another doesn't guarantee, or even suggest, that the best genes are being passed on.

But it certainly is a behavior that preserves life.   The sacrificer likely held that its life was less important than the life (lives) it saves through sacrifice.    For example, a mother fighting a predator to the death so that her cubs could escape.

In fact, if sacrificing oneself for the sake of others is a morally good thing and evolutionarily desirable, then dying actually thwarts beneficial aspects of morality as it relates to evolution, as there is no obvious connection between the sacrifice and that those saved will pass genes associated with dying for the greater good. 

See above.   I think it is safe to say that most people are not so altruistic.   It is not as though it is routine for beings to be in situations where they must sacrifice themselves either.   So it makes perfectly good sense that a) we still have people who will do ... genes from those who would sacrifice but did not need to or who sacrificed after their offspring were born and b) most people are not so altruistic.

The third reason relates to the first. If morality is an evolutionary mechanism designed for evolutionary purposes ...

Base morality is an emergent property of biological evolution ... it was not 'designed for evolutionary purposes'.

... and it does indeed only narrowly apply to us because we have the cognitive ability to recognize the concept whereas other members of the animal kingdom do not,   ...

But it does apply to animals too.   Just not as sophisticated and nuanced as our subjective moralities.

... why is our concept of morality unattached to the concept of survival and/or improvement of the species?

Why would you think our concept of morality (various subjective moralities exist) is unattached to survival??

Why is eugenics not the universal religion of the human species?

Because that is not what resulted from the sociological evolution of our subjective moralities.   It might be more universal in the future as societies evolve.   

If evolution is the driving force behind life, then eugenics simply makes sense. Morality would consist of whatever actions produced a more successful human. Basically, something like the world depicted in the film "Gattaca". 

So now let me summarize again what I have stated:

Morality = subjective morality.   Every society / culture / group could have its own distinct subjective morality.

Morality is (simplistically) an emergent property of biological evolution and sociological evolution.    The biological part is primarily (not exclusively) tied to the survival of species.   That is, extant species are those whose biology best enables them to survive in their respective environments.

The sociological part is much more interesting.   It is the result of many interacting minds (not genes) which result in emergent morality.   One society, though complex interactions, will deem is immoral to kill a child for dishonoring her family whereas other societies would deem is a moral imperative to engage in honor killing.

Going back to his original post he posted lines from scripture.

Sure, a gross misrepresentation there...

God is unchanging. . . .

Besides being "pithy" what exactly does that mean?  Are you of a 'sect' in Judaism? Why do you call Christianity a "full-blown" religion if God did not appear from a human perspective, to provide a change in 'administration'?

But of course, you won't say anything about what is your 'confession' which is sorely missing from these 'talks' on NT. Just skim along talking or trying to discuss issues, dilemmas, academically, disjointed, and detached from reality: that is, ignoring, dismissing, and even disrespecting  where people actually live, move, and have their being!

Lastly, God needing me or you to get people saved may be considered a 'works' gospel and where do you find that in the scripture approved? God does not require it.

Logically only if there really is a God who guided the writings of ancient men.   If there is no such entity then logically there are many interpretations due to a) vague language and b) the desire of believers to make the Bible consistent in spite of itself.

I suppose this does as well as anything to illustrate the futility of this argument. 

What, specifically, do you find wrong in the quoted statement?

If there is a God then it is possible to have one true interpretation: it would be God's intent.   Of course, that does not mean anyone knows for certain that they indeed have that true interpretation.   Plenty of people might think they hold truth but that does not mean they do.  

If there is no God then logically we will have all sorts of interpretations (none of them true) because the interpretations will come from the Bible which has both vague language and because of zealous pursuits to try to make the Bible appear consistent in spite of itself.

And even if there is a God, the vagueness of the Bible will still allow zealots to craft the interpretations of their desires.

In short, there is nothing that can be used to ensure that anyone has God's truth.

The honest position on God's truth is:   'I do not know what God (if He exists) has in mind, etc.; I can only speculate.'.

What, specifically, do you find wrong in the quoted statement?

It isn't a case of whether the statement is wrong. It is a case of perspective. It is a case of one person taking as granted that God exists and another for whom the question is unresolved. 

If there is a God then it is possible to have one true interpretation: it would be God's intent.

Agreed, and for me, this question is settled. Not so for you, so I am always fighting upstream, so to speak. Regardless of what I say, it inevitably goes through the filter of "God's existence isn't proven to my satisfaction", whether you realize it or not, and because of that, what I say is filtered through your ideas of what God would be like according to your intellect.

Put another way, God is merely a hypothetical and, because of this you feel it reasonable to postulate what God would be according to your own ideas rather than argue on the God presented by the Bible. For instance, in your view, a moral God could not possibly have anything to do with slavery and still be considered moral. My view is that God can be against something like slavery, yet allow it because it serves His purpose to do so. 

The problem with your view, in my opinion, is that it suggests that you have something resembling omniscience in regards to such matters or how else could you make the judgements that you do? I my view, humanity is broken. Rather than being the tyrant that many accuse Him of, God chooses to work within the human system in order to accomplish His desired goals. Surely you would concede that God, having the purported power we claim He does, could do such a thing. Yet, even if you concede such it, practically, is ignored. That is, while you may concede such a point, you dismiss it as not applicable for whatever reason. 

Of course, that does not mean anyone knows for certain that they indeed have that true interpretation.   Plenty of people might think they hold truth but that does not mean they do.  

Also correct. It isn't as if God periodically gives the SAT of religious doctrine to confirm who has the correct doctrine. However, the Bible is not a fantasy. It actually exists. Anyone can pick one up and read it. More, if they wish, they can study the documents from which it comes, the cultures to whom it was written, what they assumed about the world and all the rest. Given that, there are, primarily, two ways to read the Bible. One is to read it for the purpose of confirming predetermined desires. The other is to read it as intended. An explanation of reality as God sees it. 

If there is no God then logically we will have all sorts of interpretations (none of them true) because the interpretations will come from the Bible which has both vague language and because of zealous pursuits to try to make the Bible appear consistent in spite of itself.

Taken at face value, yes, I would agree. If there is no God...

But we aren't, or at least, I'm not, arguing from that perspective. My argument is given as taking for granted that God exists, even if only notionally. That is, my argument assumes that we're taking God's existence for granted and explaining why He might allow something like slavery even though He may not approve of it. If you are not arguing on that assumption then let me know right now and I won't bother wasting either or our time. 

And even if there is a God, the vagueness of the Bible will still allow zealots to craft the interpretations of their desires.

I don't think this is correct. I don't believe the Bible is vague any more than calculus is vague. Rather, the Bible is a new way of thinking about one's existence. In my opinion, the reason it seems vague is that it is contrary to natural human thinking. That is, people try to fit what the Bible says into their own preconceptions and when the ideas don't fit neatly into those conceptions it appears vague. 

In short, there is nothing that can be used to ensure that anyone has God's truth.

This seems a materialist point of view. You seem to be saying there is no way to objectively prove one interpretation over another, even though the Bible actually tells us how we can be sure. 

The honest position on God's truth is:   'I do not know what God (if He exists) has in mind, etc.; I can only speculate.'

But such a view proceeds from a particular assumption. That God doesn't exert Himself toward understanding. It's simply a materialist point of view, which, if it abided by its own claim, should not be held to be any more true than any other position on the subject. 

For instance, in your view, a moral God could not possibly have anything to do with slavery and still be considered moral. My view is that God can be against something like slavery, yet allow it because it serves His purpose to do so. 

This. . .statement has a fatal flaw. First, God allows much that is on the spectrum (Satan included) that is against God, and; secondly, God "purposes" being served by sin satisfies what 'end'? 

God is above all and infallible, no? Thus, God's purposes are pro-God!

Whatever God's reasoning for allowing Jews to own slaves, it is counterbalanced by the fact that the Bible tells us the Children of Abraham went into slavery themselves as textually foretold by God.

I my view, humanity is broken. Rather than being the tyrant that many accuse Him of, God chooses to work within the human system in order to accomplish His desired goals.

This is another instance of a fatally flawed statement.. And, it points to why atheists can 'eat the Christian uttering such a concept's 'lunch'! The systems of this world are surrounded by other more 'compelling' dynamic systems which are as dangerous and deadly as they are all-encompassing: storms, fires, wild beasts, cold, heat, planetary bombardments, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, and every other kind of 'groan' that is replete on the Earth.

Therefore, humanity is not broken without external causes playing into it. And those factors come from the sphere we dwell on-which is not controlled by. . . us. Now, to what do we believers attribute our planet's dynamics? Because we are simply doing the best we can with what we find here! Inside and outside of ourselves!

I don't think this is correct. I don't believe the Bible is vague any more than calculus is vague. Rather, the Bible is a new way of thinking about one's existence. In my opinion, the reason it seems vague is that it is contrary to natural human thinking. That is, people try to fit what the Bible says into their own preconceptions and when the ideas don't fit neatly into those conceptions it appears vague. 

The next thing you will commence telling us is the Bible is explicitly clear that we are saved by Grace/Faith alone (Paul), but faith without works is dead still (James)!

Calculus!

God could not have 'synched' the books of the Bible any better if 'tried.' /s 

I don't question God's authority or actions, just the men and women who do such an unfortunate 'job' of trying to master the silence!

It is a case of one person taking as granted that God exists and another for whom the question is unresolved. 

Indeed.   I certainly agree with that.

Regardless of what I say, it inevitably goes through the filter of "God's existence isn't proven to my satisfaction", whether you realize it or not, and because of that, what I say is filtered through your ideas of what God would be like according to your intellect.

If I believed that a god exists and is perfect, omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, I would still hold that the Bible is NOT the word of this god because of what I have argued:  contradictions, lack of anything that evidences divinity, and the endless varying interpretations of same.

Put another way, God is merely a hypothetical and, because of this you feel it reasonable to postulate what God would be according to your own ideas rather than argue on the God presented by the Bible. 

Then you have totally missed a key point of mine for years.   I have argued that NOBODY (and that includes me) knows anything about the supreme entity.    The God presented in the Bible is defined as a contradiction thus I have evidence (proof actually) that this god —as defined— does not exist.   That does not mean no god exists.   But if there is a god, we have no knowledge of what this god wants, plans, etc. and no concept of its nature.   That is, we do not know if it is eternal, omnipotent, etc.   We do not even know if it is sentient.

For instance, in your view, a moral God could not possibly have anything to do with slavery and still be considered moral. My view is that God can be against something like slavery, yet allow it because it serves His purpose to do so. 

Sure, God could allow slavery even if He considers it immoral.   A logical reason for this would be to not upset the economies of ancient times.   The key though is that if God is against slavery, He has not communicated this to His people: ancient or modern.   Seems like a major omission given all the rules He has given.   Seems like a fundamental failure to communicate this important moral rule given modern societies no longer depend upon slavery.

The problem with your view, in my opinion, is that it suggests that you have something resembling omniscience in regards to such matters or how else could you make the judgements that you do?

That is the exact opposite of what I argue.  I do not argue that I am omniscient but rather that I (and everyone else) knows nothing of our creator.

I my view, humanity is broken. Rather than being the tyrant that many accuse Him of, God chooses to work within the human system in order to accomplish His desired goals. Surely you would concede that God, having the purported power we claim He does, could do such a thing. Yet, even if you concede such it, practically, is ignored. That is, while you may concede such a point, you dismiss it as not applicable for whatever reason. 

This has nothing to do with what I have offered.   God, defined as omnipotent and omniscient, could do anything that logically could be done.   How many times I have noted this to you?

The other is to read it [the Bible] as intended. An explanation of reality as God sees it. 

The Bible is vague, contradictory and has no evidence of divinity.   Odd that anyone would simply accept it as the divine Word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity.

I don't think this is correct. I don't believe the Bible is vague any more than calculus is vague.

I say the Bible is vague because you and many others argue specific meaning yet do not agree on said meaning.   You, for example, take words like 'regret' and 'troubled' and flat out redefine the meaning of those words to fit your narrative that God has perfect knowledge.   In Calculus, the concepts are formally defined, the notation explicit and consistent, the methods proven.   Comparing Calculus with the Bible is profoundly flawed.

You seem to be saying there is no way to objectively prove one interpretation over another, even though the Bible actually tells us how we can be sure. 

There is definitely no way to prove which interpretation is true.   Show me how the Bible tells us how that can be accomplished.    I expect your answer to essentially be 'open your heart and have faith'.

But such a view proceeds from a particular assumption. That God doesn't exert Himself toward understanding. It's simply a materialist point of view, which, if it abided by its own claim, should not be held to be any more true than any other position on the subject. 

The view that we (human beings) do not even know that a creator exists certainly suggests that we do not know anything about said creator.   Manyh believe a creator exists, but those who hold that belief do so on the basis of faith because they literally have nothing else.    The Bible (for Christians) is seen as evidence of the Christian God (it is not, by any stretch of the imagination).   Yet nothing in the Bible illustrates its divinity.   Nowhere, for example, do we have a precise prediction that we can verify today.   A prediction such as when slavery will cease being the predominant economic system.

This. . .statement has a fatal flaw.

Then why do you not point out what it is? 

This is another instance of a fatally flawed statement.

Again, whatever you point is, it isn't recognizable. 

The next thing you will commence telling us is the Bible is explicitly clear thatwe are saved by Grace/Faith alone(Paul), but faith without works is dead still (James)!

If you mean by "telling us" that such is stated by the Bible, you'd be correct, if that were pertinent to the conversation. Since this doesn't seem relevant to the current conversation I wonder a) why you bring it up, and b) whether you disagree with it, and c) why you are attempting to portray it as something I've brought up. 

In reality, what you are attempting to do is bring up a subject of your own making and make it seem as if it were I who did so. Why? If it is a subject you wish to discuss, why not simply say so, rather that employ duplicitous methods to introduce it? 

Sure, God could allow slavery even if He considers it immoral.   A logical reason for this would be to not upset the economies of ancient times.   The key though is that if God is against slavery, He has not communicated this to His people: ancient or modern.   Seems like a major omission given all the rules He has given.   Seems like a fundamental failure to communicate this important moral rule given modern societies no longer depend upon slavery.

What's interesting in this paragraph above is the use of two pronouns, "he" and "his" as a communication devices for simplicity/ease. Because evidently a spirit  being maintains or has no need sustain a human form. God as a he/his is a social construct.

The next thing you will commence telling us is the Bible is explicitly clear that - we are saved by Grace/Faith alone(Paul), but faith without works is dead still (James)!

Christians struggle with the vagueness of some scriptures which have no clear practical application until they can be reconciled with discernment which leads to living by what the shared or 'joined' outcome.

If that was not case, then scriptures could be read at face value without the need for a (spirit of) discernment or even acquired wisdom to help achieve understanding. And furthermore, study, serious, deep and rich (years and lifelong) study would not be necessary or applicable. And we can all attest to how much study is given to the Bible in our culture.

But you continue to make these comment "jungles" and tangles which do not convey or put across your points as clear and complete as you wish.

BTW, you don't have to issue so many words to distract from the truth that salvation by faith alone or through works is not explicitly clear in scripture. It is disingenuous for you to try to 'work' deceit in throwing up word 'salad' instead of just admitting that the two things have been scripturally reconciled together to make sense!

I tried to parse meaning from the word salad you present but gave up. I know you've been here long enough to know how to speak proper English in order to convey your ideas but you refuse to do so. Since this is so, you come across as someone only tenuously connected to reality. Now, you can continue as you have, but if you hope for a response from me concerning your comments, start speaking english in the manner intended. 

I had a response for this post but it all disappeared when I tried to start a new paragraph. It kicked me right out of this article, in fact, and took me to the main NT page. I just don't have it in me to attempt to do it all over again. 

How pathetic. You have a 'block' or something? You think you can give me a complex of some kind? Weak. Sad. Disingenuous Christians are so prevalent nowadays. Well, it's looks like this is going to bottom out before it can get better.   Amen. (So be it.)

And what makes you imply or suggest that I come here to educate myself on the English language is beyond me. So now the world gets to see just how 'stupid' Christianity can conduct itself when it is dishonest and crooked. This is on you, Drakkonis!

Really?  I am sorry that happened to you. Go ahead, I'm waiting, tell me I don't really mean it. Or, how too complex the sentence structure is to understand.

God as a he/his is a social construct.

I agree.  And the capitalization is a convention.

Okay.   I have no explanation for how that could happen other than somehow clicking on the Home menu item or the "The NewsTalkers" icon on the upper left.

My key posit is that nobody knows for sure if there is even a sentient creator.   And since we do not even know if one exists, we surely do not know anything about this creator.   Thus I find it remarkable that anyone would offer insight into the mind of what would be the grandest possible entity.

Hubris, vanity and excessive pride are to blame but are all deadly sins...

You likely won't answer this, but I am going to ask it anyway: What Christian denomination are you a member or what Christian association/affiliation do you attend?

Even as I write this, I have a 'vision' of you coming back with criticism of this simplest of request and/or me rather than sharing anything of value that may help discussion flow more smoothly.

Okay.   I have no explanation for how that could happen other than somehow clicking on the Home menu item or the "The NewsTalkers" icon on the upper left.

Neither do I. Just typing away and then everything's gone. Wasn't even using the mouse. Not the first time it happened, either. Figure I must be hitting the window key maybe and some other key does a macro or something. Just a tad frustrating, though. 

My key posit is that nobody knows for sure if there is even a sentient creator.   And since we do not even know if one exists, we surely do not know anything about this creator.   Thus I find it remarkable that anyone would offer insight into the mind of what would be the grandest possible entity.

And I guess my counter is that I find it odd that one would hold such a view as it doesn't seem to allow for agency on that being's part. That is, it could not or would not make itself known. As stated before, I don't mean that we could fully know such a mind, but I think that being would certainly be able to communicate what it desired for us to know about it in a manner that is understandable. I see no barriers to ths. 

What Christian denomination are you a member or what Christian association/affiliation do you attend?

I am a member of no denomination. The church I attend happens to be Foursquare but I don't attend it for that reason. 

As stated before, I don't mean that we could fully know such a mind, but I think that being would certainly be able to communicate what it desired for us to know about it in a manner that is understandable.

Well, since you are a stickler for clarity in communication:

Is the Bible explicitly clear believers are saved by Grace/Faith alone (Paul); or, does faith without works mean believers are still spiritually dead (James)?

And please do not bother 'abusing' me with a distraction about its not relevant to our discussion. Because it is you who is going on and on with another commenter about communicability and understandability from God!

Do answer the question, please.

I allow for agency but not only have I never seen credible evidence of same, I see substantial evidence that agency is not in effect or that it is highly selective.  The variation in beliefs about the creator suggest, to me, that there is no agency (even though many believe it is in place).

So while agency is possible, I see no evidence of it.

That said, how does one who thinks he has an agency connection with the grandest possible entity (i.e. God) know that this is truly a distinct entity communicating with him rather than his own mind portraying agency due to faith?    I, personally, would look for verification.   Something like the agency delivering significant, probative information that I do not possess but turns out to be true.    While that does not evidence a supreme entity agent, it does at least evidence agency.

Just typing away and then everything's gone.

For long responses, consider using Word (or equivalent) and then copy & paste into the comment editor when you are done.   Online pop-up editors typically do not have autosave mechanisms that products like Word offer.

The church I attend happens to be Foursquare but I don't attend it for that reason. 

Thank you for attempting to answer the question with a denomination type: Four-square churches are protestant denominational churches. Still, I have to ask for clarity on the quote above. Do you attend or not attend?

He attends.

Is the Bible explicitly clear believers are saved by Grace/Faith alone (Paul); or, does faith without works mean believers are still spiritually dead (James)?

Whether it's clear depends on the spiritual maturity of the reader. Paul makes it pretty clear that it is by faith alone, and not works but I can understand someone new to the faith being confused by James. I know I was.

While James makes it about as clear as it can be said that faith without works is a dead faith, most of the controversy/misunderstanding associated with the passage is whether or not works is a part of salvation. The Catholics take James to mean it takes both faith and works for salvation, but that isn't what James says. Works are evidence of faith that isn't dead, not something that saves you. In other words, James is answering the question, "What does real faith look like?" His answer is that real faith motivates us to works that God has for us to do. 

I attend as I am able. Due to my work schedule and the fact that this church only has worship on Sunday mornings I am not always able to attend. I am considering finding another church that also has worship during the week, so I can attend more. 

Still, I have to ask for clarity on the quote above. Do you attend or not attend?

I may be way off base here, but I do believe that this clearly states he does:

The church I attend happens to be Foursquare but I don't attend it for that reason. 

What do you think he meant by that?

Yeah, that's probably the way to go. 

That said, how does one who thinks he has an agency connection with the grandest possible entity (i.e. God) know that this is truly a distinct entity communicating with him rather than his own mind portraying agency due to faith? 

New Testament- Paul is a classic example of God's agency with an individual on the Damascus Road. 

Whereas some - ask, knock, or seek for and after God; Saul was in hot pursuit of persecuting those of 'the Way'. And it is this Saul who details how his 'course' and directives were ground to a halt when God intercepted his official and defined agenda. So much so that a warrant was issued for his death by those who considered him a traitor to Judaism.

I, like you, and any other rational person, can tell when my worldview is literally changing. I am so much different now (right at 30 years with this current worldview) than I was before. It is a textbook definition of "repentance," that is, defining the word as: turning and going in the other direction.

NOTE: These types of comments nearly always leave out as many "examples" and information sharing as they include. In and of itself repentance, indwelling spirit, and fellowship with God are individually experienced. Meaning, you know that you know - something has occurred. Usually, one can recall the time/moment it does too.

The hardest 'part' of the above is guidance has to come from somewhere, as God does not train believers. There is not unifying "divine" classroom where spiritual beings teach spiritual understanding and life lessons. We, believers, have the Bible and other people of old and new who must share what spirituality means.

Consider that the first apostles and Paul on his missions only had themselves to formulate a 'way,' and a new CHURCH age with spirit-leading, but without its presence on a literal basis overall.

A great reply/answer. It it you, as well as I, and many others RECONCILE what Paul teaches about salvation being of faith alone with what his 'equal' James says about works. Conclusion: We are saved by faith to do good works!

My conclusion agrees with your conclusion.

It is also clear that as a Jew and follower of Christ, James would have thought it important that Jewish believers understand the dual/responsibilities they had (circumcision, holy days, et ceteras) which were not requirements for gentile believers.

That said, how does one who thinks he has an agency connection with the grandest possible entity (i.e. God) know that this is truly a distinct entity communicating with him rather than his own mind portraying agency due to faith?

That is probably impossible to explain satisfactorily since such a connection is necessarily subjective. Being married to your wife is a subjective experience that you can attempt to describe but only you truly know the experience. It will not satisfy you if I tell you there's no way I could come to the understanding about this existence that I have unless God showed it to me. I could tell you that most of my life I considered myself a Christian but I never really was one other than in name only. Because I wasn't the Bible was pretty incomprehensible to me. Once I started taking it seriously, God showed me, is showing me, what it actually says. Even simple concepts I thought I had understood, such as love thy neighbor, had more depth than I could have understood on my own or through some human agency. 

I do not speak of feelings, here. I'm not talking about getting warm and fuzzy or having 'experiences', although those are sometimes part of it. I'm not talking about living some sort of continuous religious epiphany or some other emotional experience. I say this because those were the things I expected it to be like. Hard to articulate just what I expected but I certainly expected something other than what it turned out to be.  

So, how can I know it isn't just my mind doing it's thing? Perhaps the best way to say it is that I got neither what I expected nor what I wanted. It seems to me that if it were my mind, it would try to give me what I wanted and I'd be going to Copeland's church or something. Instead of what I expected or wanted, I got a change of mind. One that, whether you believe it or not, I could never arrive at on my own. My old self simply doesn't think that way. Jesus told Nicodemus that to enter God's kingdom they had to be born again from above. That used to just be a concept to me. Now I understand it and it is evidence for my faith. Again, subjective, but there it is. 

Understood.   For me, I would need something that clearly shows that this is not simply my mind.   Getting something other than your expectation as you continue to take in new information sounds like normal learning to me.   In contrast, as I noted, gaining information that you could not possibly have but came true (e.g. foreshadowing of an entirely unexpected terminal diagnosis for a family member or an unexpected happy pregnancy from a seemingly infertile family member) certainly could be considered evidence of agency.

That cliché rebuttal is truly stupid.

Lol .... I’ll remember that when you pull it out here again.    As you have many, many times.

Many times.

A lame attempt by you to intentionally 'misread'.   I have never used the cliché rebuttal of "you have to believe in something to make a point referring to it" or equivalent.   It is, as I noted, a stupid rebuttal:

• You do not hold Islamic beliefs, so would it be intellectually dishonest for you to quote from the Qur'an to make a point?
• You do not believe that Darth Vader or Yoda exists, but if making a point about who would win in a lightsaber fight would it be intellectually dishonest to refer to the Star War movies and supporting books?
• You do not believe Zeus is real but when making a point in reference to his claimed omnipotence would it be intellectually dishonest for you to refer to Greek mythology.

It is also clear that as a Jew and follower of Christ, James would have thought it important that Jewish believers understand the dual/responsibilities they had (circumcision, holy days, et ceteras) which were not requirements for gentile believers.

I disagree. James would have dispensed with the Old Covenant for the New, just as Paul had. The only effect the Old Covenant could possibly have is to condemn those Jews who refused Christ. That isn't to say that every custom that came from the Old Covenant would necessarily have to be abandoned. They would simply gain new interpretation. But, certainly, circumcision, mandatory observation of holy days and the like would not be a part of their responsibilities as Messianic Jews. 

Reading Bart Ehrman would be suggested, then, or perhaps looking at some YouTube vids where he speaks. 

By the way, I have seen a number of Ehrman lectures / speeches and debates.    I find it odd that you consider Dr. Ehrman to hold the same basic interpretation of the Bible as you.

For example, here is a short video:

You would consider this consistent with your view?

I find it odd that you consider Dr. Ehrman to hold the same basic interpretation of the Bible as you.

Remember to what I was responding to when I suggested Ehrman. 

This is a claim that you would need to detail.   Just telling me that biblical scholars and/or theologians hold that your interpretations of the Bible are correct is an empty claim.

Although Ehrman doesn't believe he is able to understand, theologically, what the verses say. That is the relevant portion for which I suggested him. That he expresses reasons as to why he thinks it isn't true or is in some way logically problematical is not relevant to my purpose for recommending him. Rather, it was that someone on your side of the argument, generally, has the same interpretation that we  do. 

Rather, it was that someone on your side of the argument, generally, has the same interpretation that we  do. 

What, specifically, is the interpretation per Ehrman with which you (presuming you are part of 'we') agree?

James was under the law (of Moses) until his death. James lived in Jerusalem. And even after founding the Jerusalem church - James would have to follow the Law of Moses which was a forever covenant for the Jewish people.

Of course, Paul was a Jew 'sent' out to the gentiles who were never under the Law of Moses, for it was not 'hand down' to them in part or whole.

Acts 15:

¹³ When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. ¹⁴ Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. ¹⁵ The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

¹⁶ “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
¹⁷ that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’
¹⁸ things known from long ago.
¹⁹ “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. ²⁰ Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ²¹ For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

That last verse (21) is curious for its placement in nearness to the Council's directives to the gentiles, but it can be explained and understood properly that some Jews in the missionary cities were turning to the new faith as well. However, those Jews would be under Jewish law (works) as well as Jesus (faith) and they would have proper synagogues to continue in attending as dual-citizens under law and faith.

This is a complex concept to type out long-hand.

See: "Jesus the cornerstone"

Ephesians 2:19–21 — New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (NASB95)

19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household,

20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,

21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord.

What, specifically, is the interpretation per Ehrman with which you (presuming you are part of 'we') agree?

Well, keep in mind, I said "generally." For instance, the resurrection. I do not refer to the topic the host of this vid is speaking of. That is, did the resurrection actually happen. Rather, does Ehrman, within reason, accurately depict what is believed about it from the Christian perspective. What he personally thinks of it is a separate issue. While I might take issue with some of the specifics he believes we believe about the topic, he fairly well describes the Christian view of the topic. While he describes the resurrected body as a spiritual body, I don't think that would reflect what we believe. When Jesus appears to the disciples after his resurrection, he asks for food, something a purely spiritual body would not need. Of course, he doesn't actually define what he means by 'spiritual body' so I can't say for certain. Regardless, he understands the concept of a new resurrection body. 

That last verse (21) is curious for its placement in nearness to the Council's directives to the gentiles, but it can be explained and understood properly that some Jews in the missionary cities were turning to the new faith as well. However, those Jews would be under Jewish law (works) as well as Jesus (faith) and they would have proper synagogues to continue in attending as dual-citizens under law and faith .

Paul would disagree, and took Peter to task for reverting to the Old Covenant. 

Galatians 2:11-21 11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? 15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in ^d Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. 17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker. 19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

If the Jews remained under the law as "duel citizens" as you put it, then for Jews, Christ died for nothing. The NT makes it clear that no one (except Christ) will be justified by the Law. That freedom comes only through Christ. Christ's righteousness is attributable to us because he was the only one who satisfied the requirements of the Law. To say that Jews were still obligated to the law means that Christ's sacrifice would not apply to them because they are Jews. 

Biblical scholars are the elite professionals who seek the most accurate interpretation of the Bible possible.   And they typically do not impose their own beliefs (being professionals).

I find biblical scholarship to be fascinating.   The methods they use to tease out nuance are very impressive.   The amount of cross-referencing and deep study (e.g. sentential analysis of ancient languages to determine time of authorship and sources) they do is truly remarkable.

So, in this sense, I would find it fascinating if a biblical scholar could offer a consistent explanation for the omniscience+perfection attributes of God versus His surprise, anger, disappointment, etc.   Or, alternatively, how God can condone slavery in the Bible yet consider it to be immoral.

I have yet to find a persuasive explanation for contradictions like these.   Redefining words such as 'disappointed' is not persuasive.   Suggesting that God holds slavery to be immoral yet all biblical 'language' suggests otherwise, is not persuasive.   The most logical explanations I have seen are things like (per Open theists) God's omniscience is actually a middle omniscience ... that he knows what could happen but does not actually know what will happen.   But even here, this, to me, is just redefining the word and redefining phrases such as "Psalm 147:5 - Our Lord is great and has awesome power; there is no limit to his wisdom." or "Job 37:16 - Do you know about the balancing of the clouds that wondrous activity of him who is perfect in knowledge?".

I have yet to find a persuasive explanation for contradictions like these.   Redefining words such as 'disappointed' is not persuasive.

In my opinion, this is because you examine this from your own point of view rather than what the narrative of the Bible claims God is trying to accomplish. That is, you judge it by what makes sense to you according to your own reasoning. While I assume you feel rather confident in your ability to reason, I have little doubt that you are as aware of possible self-deception concerning your ability as I am of mine. 

While I'm not aware of any verses that state God was 'disappointed' I don't take such expressions at face value. Or perhaps it would be more precise to state that I don't necessarily take them to mean what it would if a human were expressing the described emotion. Take one of the most common descriptions concerning God. Wrath. This is the most often described reaction toward sin that God has. What defines the term is human experience. And therein lies the problem. We can only define wrath in terms of human experience. 

But God is not human. I understand that you think the Bible is a human invention and, therefore, the God it describes is merely the product of human imagination. That's fine. But, conceptually, I believe you understand that we believe that He actually is not a product of human imagination and is, in fact, the greatest being possible. So much so that there is no comparison to anything else. What I am trying to get at is that He's so not us that we would have no hope of knowing Him unless He took steps to be known. A point you seem to agree with. And, even then, unless one has an overinflated view of humanity, the best we could understand is an approximation due to the limitations of what we are. 

If there is any truth to what I've just said, then your complaint of 'redefining' words would not be an accurate description of what's going on. It would simply be insistence that it must mean what humans experience rather than the closest thing we are able to understand about an infinite being. Recall my analogy concerning ants. How much of what you understand about existence do you think you could get an ant to understand? Would you demand an ant understand you on your intellectual level or would you tailor your message in a manner that an ant could understand? Surely the gap between ourselves and an infinite, omniscient being would be even greater. 

In order to claim contradictions, this is what you must first be able to disprove. That you find such arguments unconvincing is not itself convincing. 

Acts 17

When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. ²  As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, ³  explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. ⁴  Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.

⁵  But other Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city. They rushed to Jason’s house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the crowd. ^{[ a ] 6}  But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting: “These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, ⁷  and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.” ⁸  When they heard this, the crowd and the city officials were thrown into turmoil. ⁹  Then they made Jason and the others post bond and let them go.

I remind you we discussing James and Jewish believers. . . so while Paul was a mission 'journey' to multiple lands and places in order to plant churches and make converts to "the Way' later called "Christians" -  The Apostles remained in Jerusalem and of course they attended. . . the Temple at Jerusalem. And to be 'immersed in the temple worship and obedience to the Law.

Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death.And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Source: bible.knowing-jesus

More later. It's late. Good night.  One eye subbornly remains open!

And to be 'immersed in the temple worship and obedience to the Law.

I assume this is the major point you wish to make. If so, you will need to make a better argument than this. You post scripture but it seems to have no relation to your point. 

Morning. Got to bed late and got to run early. You're right about Paul (sent to the gentiles) and more later on that. I will be 'out' this Monday morning. One point I will 'drop'/add for this time being is we have Christians today who live and teach Old Testament rules, customs, holy days, and keep the Sabbath: Seventh Day Adventist.

You have articulated a position of yours that I have indeed understood for quite some time.   In the abstract (beyond the Bible) it makes sense.   If there is a supreme entity it would be unfathomable to us.   So it would need to communicate with us in terms we understand.   Again, in the abstract, that makes perfect sense.

The problems occurs at reification.   As I noted to you earlier, scripture such as what I noted @1.1.59 is not simply 'dumbed down' to our level, it is (per your interpretation) misleading.

This scripture, for example:

Genesis 6:5  The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 6:6  The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

Genesis 6:7  So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

would communicate your interpretation (what you consider to be the divine meaning) better if written like this:

Genesis 6:5  The LORD, saw [noted] the great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 6:6  The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

Genesis 6:7  So the LORD said, “I will [now] wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—as per my plan for I regret that I have made them.”

There is no value in using common words that do not express the intended meaning.   If omniscient God is not deeply troubled then do not express that notion.  If a concept can be understood by human beings then it can be expressed properly in natural language.   

Producing a work replete with apparent errors and contradictions based on common interpretation of the words and syntax of a natural language is counter-productive if the intent is to communicate.

Since we have no evidence of a supreme entity, works like the Bible with their clear borrowing of ideas from earlier lore/stories, errors, contradictions, etc. and the obvious fact that the authors were among the most gifted writers of their time (they show the ability to express very complex ideas) coupled with the fact that the Bible makes no predictions that could be verified to illustrate divinity is strong evidence that it is merely a work of men and not the perfect word of an omniscient, omnipotent divinity.

With all the evidence that goes against the Bible being viewed as perfect and divine the natural conclusion is that it is simply the work of ancient men.    And with that, the god it describes is as valid as any other fictional character.

So where does that leave us?

Well, for me, I conclude that I do not know if a supreme creator exists.   I hold it possible, but until I get some evidence to suggest a supreme creator exists, I will remain agnostic.    Should evidence arise, then and only then would I begin to hypothesize the properties and intentions of this entity.

Importantly, I will live my life free from the control / direction of mere human religious authorities (modern or ancient).   I will continue to better appreciate that which enabled our existence by learning of our amazing nature (quantum dynamics through cosmology) primarily through science and logic rooted in sound evidence.

Acts 8: 1

Saul was in hearty agreement with putting [Stephen] to death.And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem , and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles .

I will ask several thought questions:

1. Why was the Jerusalem Church "greatly persecuted" and scattered ?

2 . Why were the apostles not scattered alongside their Jerusalem Church congregation, instead being allowed to remain in Jerusalem and administering a church?

It can be deduced the 'unscattered' apostles continued to follow customs, traditions, and laws (moral, civil, and judicial) of Jewish Israel.

|

1 Certain [ Jewish believers/Messianic Jews from the Jerusalem Church ]* came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." ²  This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them.

* The Jerusalem Church was under the leadership of James, writer of the Books of James. And his fellow apostles were there too!

|

Messianic Jewish Practices

1. Baptism - Messianic Jews practice baptism, immersion in water, just as John the Baptist practiced in the New Testament. This is a representation of a believer’s acceptance and confession that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. (Acts 2:38)

2. Circumcision - Just as Abraham was told by God that all who believe should be circumcised, Messianic Jews also adhere to this teaching. This is a part of fulfilling the covenant God made with Abraham. (Genesis 17)

3. Sabbath - Many Messianic Jews follow the Jewish traditions of observing the Sabbath on Friday night through Saturday night. Sabbath was commanded by God and written as a part of the Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The people are to set aside one day per week to cease from work as God rested on the seventh day of the Creation of the world. (Exodus 31:12-17)

4. Holidays - Messianic Jews recognize Jewish Holy Days such as Passover, Sukkot, Yom Kippur, and Rosh Hashanah. These celebrations were commanded by God and given to Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness. They serve to remember God, His provision, and express understanding that everything belongs to God. The Messianic Jews follow the holidays in the lens of Jesus Christ fulfilling the purpose behind the observance sacrifice and atonement of sin. (Leviticus 23)

5. Dietary Laws - Some Messianic Jews follow the kosher diet which are specific food restrictions God gave the Israelites in the Old Testament to keep their bodies holy, pure, and set apart as God’s people. Messianic Jews may follow these restrictions, but also understand the death and resurrection of Christ cleanses and purifies you from sin. (Leviticus 11)

|

Messianic Jews:

Differences between Messianic Jews and Christianity lie in the traditions of the Jewish faith. 

Many Messianic Jews observe the Jewish holidays of Passover and Hanukkah and not the Christian holidays of Easter and Christmas.

Some Messianic Jews also observe the dietary commands given to the Israelites in the Old Testament as to spiritually cleanse the body through physically cleansing it through avoiding certain meat, seafood, and dairy. Christians do not keep dietary guidelines as a part of their faith.

Messianic Jews observe the Sabbath on Friday night to Saturday night as Christians mostly refer to their Sabbath day as Sunday when they attend church services.

christianity

I don't know in what sense these examples of Messianic Jews do the things you list here. If they simply do those things to remain connected to their heritage that's one thing. I see dangers in it, though. I don't personally know any Messianic Jews, however, if any of them think observing the Old Covenant justifies them before God then that would be unbiblical. For instance, Jewish or not Jewish, circumcision isn't necessary. It has nothing to do with salvation, either for the Jew or gentile. Nor is a Messianic Jew any less a Jew for not being circumcised physically, as the circumcision of the heart believing in Christ is the true Circumcision. 

In short, there's no support in the Bible for Messianic Jews being obligated to both the Old Covenant and New. In fact, that wouldn't even be just. Why would God obligate them to still having to carry the weight of the Old Covenant when Jesus came to free us of it? It would be like God telling Jesus his sacrifice wasn't enough for the Jews, just the Gentiles, so the Jews still have to try to do the impossible under the Old Covenant. 

Why would God obligate them to still having to carry the weight of the Old Covenant when Jesus came to free us of it? 

Should all religious people ignore all Mosaic law as irrelevant (in your opinion)?

So, for example, would it be wrong to hold that Leviticus 20:13 is still in effect?

If not, how are people supposed to interpret these portions of the OT?

7   I will establish my covenant as an EVERLASTING covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.

. . . .

14   Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Judaism has many everlasting covenants which includes circumcision, holy days, sabbath, and the like. By definition, a Messianic Jew has connections to his or her Jewish people/ Judaism .

Should all religious people ignore all Mosaic law as irrelevant (in your opinion)? So, for example, would it be wrong to hold that Leviticus 20:13 is still in effect?

These are daunting questions for the religious Fundamentalists among us. Drakk' pointed and affirmed this:

1.1.90  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @1.1.85    3 days ago

Is the Bible explicitly clear believers are saved by Grace/Faith alone (Paul); or, does faith without works mean believers are still spiritually dead (James)? 

Whether it's clear depends on the spiritual maturity of the reader. Paul makes it pretty clear that it is by faith alone, and not works but I can understand someone new to the faith being confused by James. I know I was.

When one says salvation is by faith ALONE, then keeping the Mosaic Law obviously is not necessary and not a question. Of course, this is where Peter gets involved in an important way:

2 Peter 3: 14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found spotless and blameless by Him, at peace, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 

Peter eludes to Paul's writings on liberty in Jesus and God's grace which saves apart from 'works,' while at the same time Paul writes about not using liberty to sin. Of course, when Paul writes about sin: the righteous go looking/searching for what is it they "ought" to avoid. . . causing them to consider what was sin in the. . . Old Testament. That is, what was explicitly labeled sin is best 'scoped out' in the Mosaic Law.

Judaism has many everlasting covenants which includes circumcision, holy days, sabbath, and the like. By definition, a Messianic Jew has connections to his or her Jewish people/ Judaism .

Yes, that is still true. What is different is how circumcision is applied for those who believe in Jesus as savior. Even so, Jeremiah 9:25-26 says:

25  "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh— 26  Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the wilderness in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart." 

Here we see that circumcision wasn't supposed to be merely a sign of belonging to God. When God instituted it, it was intended as an outward sign of an expected inward reality. And, if that reality wasn't there inwardly, then Jeremiah tells us that being circumcised made no difference to God whatsoever. God regarded them as if they were uncircumcised physically.

We see God saying the same thing about Temple worship and the sacrifices offered there in Malachi 1:6-14. The people offered defective animals and products for sacrifice and complained at the burden of them. God rejected it all because of what it said about the people's heart toward Him. From God’s point of view, these people were uncircumcised.

What God is looking for isn't simply following the rules, even if He was the One to institute them. What He wants is us, our hearts. Psalm 51:16-17 says. 

16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. 17  My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise.

God is looking for circumcision of the heart.

Concerning the New Covenant, God tells us about it in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

31  "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 32  It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33  "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34  No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." 

It says this New Covenant will not be like the old one. And a new one would not be needed if the old one sufficed. Jesus is the New Covenant. As was pointed out to me by someone else, in him, we are everything he is, positionally speaking.

Succinctly stated, as Christ himself was circumcised, (Luke 2:21  On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.)  all those who are “in Christ” are also circumcised with Christ, (Colossians 2:11  In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ,) just as all those who are in Christ:

• suffer with Christ: Rom 8:17  Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. 

• are crucified with Christ: Rom 6:6  For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin: Gal 2:20  I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 

• die with Christ: 2Ti 2:11  Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him;

• are buried with Christ: Rom 6:4  We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

• are resurrected with Christ: Eph 2:6  And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,; Col 2:12  having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 

• are made alive with Christ: Eph 2:5  made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

• live with Christ: Rom 6:8  Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.; 2Ti 2:11  Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him;

• are glorified with Christ: Rom 8:17  Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

• inherit with Christ: Rom 8:17  Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

• reign with Christ: 2Ti 2:12  if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;

• are seated with Christ in heaven: Eph 2:6  And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 

All of these things are true about us because of what Christ did, not because of what we do. God has granted us salvation because of our faith in Jesus and what he accomplished for us, not on how well we grade ourselves on obeying legal matters.

And what does Paul say about circumcision? The same Paul who hunted down Christians, who at the time were mostly Jews themselves, in order to imprison them or kill them because they abandoned the old covenant for the new (according to his understanding at the time)?

1 Corinthians 7:19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

Romans 2:25-29 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

And we know from the same source that:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

So, if a Messianic Jew thinks they are required to still adhere to the Mosaic law, or parts of it in order to be saved, they don’t understand salvation. Either Christ is sufficient unto salvation or he is not. To say that a Messianic Jew needs to be circumcised is attempting to be saved by works, but we know that no one will be considered righteous under the law. Either Christ is sufficient and the law is useless for attaining salvation or Christ died for nothing because having to obey the Mosaic law means that it’s possible to be saved by it.

Should all religious people ignore all Mosaic law as irrelevant (in your opinion)?

So, for example, would it be wrong to hold that Leviticus 20:13 is still in effect?

If not, how are people supposed to interpret these portions of the OT?

Given your beliefs concerning the Bible, this seems more of a point you are trying to make rather than an actual question. That's fine. I understand the point and I'm not complaining about it. In any case, I will answer it. 

The core of the answer concern's one desire for God. To know Him, please Him and be with Him as the kind of creature He intended us to be. That is the real secret to the answer to your question. 

Going on from there, the Mosaic law is not irrelevant. It says something about who God is and His character, what He expected from the Jews and how they could someday be with Him. The purpose of the Law and for the Jews themselves was that God would reveal Himself to the rest of the world through them. 

I'm assuming you're familiar enough with the Bible to know that the Jews failed miserably, but so would have anyone else God might have chosen, due to the nature of man. God's plan finally reaches the Point where Jesus comes and creates the New Covenant in his blood. So, what does the Law now mean for the Christian who actually follows Christ who's desire for God, to know Him, please Him and be with Him as the kind of creature he intended us to be? How are we supposed to treat it? 

Well, one of the things we did was look at the Law as consisting of three different kinds. Moral, civil and ceremonial. I've been up all night and it's 4am, so I'm going to cheat. I'll copy and paste, in other words, to explain it. 

The law of God given to Moses is a comprehensive set of guidelines to ensure that the Israelites' behavior reflected their status as God’s chosen people. It encompasses moral behavior, their position as a godly example to other nations, and systematic procedures for acknowledging God’s holiness and mankind’s sinfulness. In an attempt to better understand the purpose of these laws, Jews and Christians categorize them. This has led to the distinction between moral law, ceremonial law, and judicial law.

Moral Law
The moral laws, or  mishpatim , relate to justice and judgment and are often translated as "ordinances."  Mishpatim  are said to be based on God’s holy nature. As such, the ordinances are holy, just, and unchanging. Their purpose is to promote the welfare of those who obey. The value of the laws is considered obvious by reason and common sense. The moral law encompasses regulations on justice, respect, and sexual conduct, and includes the Ten Commandments. It also includes penalties for failure to obey the ordinances. Moral law does not point people to Christ; it merely illuminates the fallen state of all mankind.

Modern Protestants are divided over the applicability of  mishpatim  in the church age. Some believe that Jesus’ assertion that the law will remain in effect until the earth passes away ( Matthew 5:18 ) means that believers are still bound to it. Others, however, understand that Jesus fulfilled this requirement ( Matthew 5:17 ), and that we are instead under the law of Christ ( Galatians 6:2 ), which is thought to be "love God and love others" ( Matthew 22:36-40 ). Although many of the moral laws in the Old Testament give excellent examples as to how to love God and love others, and freedom from the law is not license to sin ( Romans 6:15 ), we are not specifically bound by  mishpatim .

Ceremonial Law
The ceremonial laws are called  hukkim  or  chuqqah  in Hebrew, which literally means “custom of the nation ”; the words are often translated as “statutes.” These laws seem to focus the adherent’s attention on God. They include instructions on regaining right standing with God (e.g., sacrifices and other ceremonies regarding “uncleanness”), remembrances of God’s work in Israel (e.g., feasts and festivals), specific regulations meant to distinguish Israelites from their pagan neighbors (e.g., dietary and clothing restrictions), and signs that point to the coming Messiah (e.g., the Sabbath, circumcision, Passover, and the redemption of the firstborn). Some Jews believe that the ceremonial law is not fixed. They hold that, as societies evolve, so do God’s expectations of how His followers should relate to Him. This view is not indicated in the Bible.

Christians are not bound by ceremonial law. Since the church is not the nation of Israel, memorial festivals, such as the Feast of Weeks and Passover, do not apply.  Galatians 3:23-25  explains that since Jesus has come, Christians are not required to sacrifice or circumcise. There is still debate in Protestant churches over the applicability of the Sabbath. Some say that its inclusion in the Ten Commandments gives it the weight of moral law. Others quote  Colossians 2:16-17  and  Romans 14:5  to explain that Jesus has fulfilled the Sabbath and become our Sabbath rest. As  Romans 14:5  says, "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." The applicability of the Old Testament law in the life of a Christian has always related to its usefulness in loving God and others. If someone feels observing the Sabbath aids him in this, he is free to observe it.

Judicial/Civil Law
The Westminster Confession adds the category of judicial or civil law. These laws were specifically given for the culture and place of the Israelites and encompass all of the moral law except the Ten Commandments. This includes everything from murder to restitution for a man gored by an ox and the responsibility of the man who dug a pit to rescue his neighbor’s trapped donkey ( Exodus 21:12-36 ). Since the Jews saw no difference between their God-ordained morality and their cultural responsibilities, this category is used by Christians far more than by Jewish scholars.

The division of the Jewish law into different categories is a human construct designed to better understand the nature of God and define which laws church-age Christians are still required to follow. Many believe the ceremonial law is not applicable, but we are bound by the Ten Commandments.  All  the law is useful for instruction ( 2 Timothy 3:16 ), and nothing in the Bible indicates that God intended a distinction of categories. Christians are not under the law ( Romans 10:4 ). Jesus fulfilled the law, thus abolishing the difference between Jew and Gentile "so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross…" ( Ephesians 2:15-16 ).

So, as the last paragraph states, this division is a human construct. We do so because, although we are not under the law, it isn't without relevance to the Christian life and dividing it this way is meant to help us examine what does or doesn't apply. The difference between the Jew and the Christian is that the Jew believes following the law is what saves them, or prompts God to save them, whereas Christians think it is Christ and his sacrifice that saves us. More, we believe that, when he said Loving God and loving our neighbors were the summation of the law and the prophets, we understood that the spirit of the law and not the letter is what was in view. 

So, obviously the ceremonial laws aren't relevant to the Christian as something required, since Christ fulfills all of that. No need for sacrificing animals over and over again, for instance. For the others, moral and civil laws, how do specific laws apply to loving God and loving our Neighbors? Loving God takes precedence, and since love of God is described as not a feeling but, rather, obedience, Leviticus 20:13 still applies. What He desires for us takes precedence over what we might desire about a thing. Sexual matters are very important to God. One can't read the Bible and think anything else. He has very specific ideas about it. The same with murder, stealing, lying and the like. 

So, to reiterate, no, the Law isn't irrelevant. Obeying the spirit of it for love of God and His will for us is valuable to Him. Following the letter of it because you think it makes you acceptable to Him is not. 

Hope this answers your question. 

Given your beliefs concerning the Bible, this seems more of a point you are trying to make rather than an actual question.

It is both.

It says something about who God is and His character, what He expected from the Jews and how they could someday be with Him. The purpose of the Law and for the Jews themselves was that God would reveal Himself to the rest of the world through them. 

Given God has not updated his Word, does it not make sense to you that people who read the Bible and see passages where, for ancient Hebrews, God orders the death penalty if two men engaged in sexual acts, cause one to possibly think that God frowns on homosexuality in general?

It does indeed say something about God and His character as well as an indication of His objective morality.   So given this, why would anyone who believes the Bible divine hold the view that God is okay with homosexuality?    

mishpatim  

In net, believers have no idea if these laws still apply or not.   Those who believe the New Covenant apologetics effectively focus on the NT and exclude the (bad parts of) OT.   Back to one of my standing points:   The Bible is demonstrably unclear and fails to effectively communicate God's Word.

They hold that, as societies evolve, so do God’s expectations of how His followers should relate to Him. This view is not indicated in the Bible.

A point I have made for years.   The Bible needs an update.

The applicability of the Old Testament law in the life of a Christian has always related to its usefulness in loving God and others. If someone feels observing the Sabbath aids him in this, he is free to observe it.

In other words:  "interpret the OT as if God only acts out of love and if you cannot comprehend why a loving God would wipe out all life on the planet (spare a restarter set) that is simply because you are not smart enough to understand God".   I just do not see how this persuades anyone.

Many believe the ceremonial law is not applicable, but we are bound by the Ten Commandments. 

Just picking this as an example (one of many).   How is it that people do not recognize that this is the result of human beings, after the fact, deciding what parts of the Bible apply to them?   This is extra-biblical information.    In the large, this is what we see all the time.   People interpret the Bible as they see fit.   And they necessarily do this because the Bible, taken literally with a plain reading — even when relying upon the original meaning of the words and phrases as best one can do with biblical scholarship — is replete with problems.   

The need to select the portions of the Bible that actually apply, to define the meaning of scripture through sometimes exotic contextual interpretation, etc. persuades some of us to hold that if the Bible were divine, nobody really knows what it means.   In fact, as much as I find him to be a clown, Ken Ham is actually on more solid ground than most here.   Ken Ham argues that if we do not take the Bible literally ("take God at His word" as he likes to say) then we are injecting our own views into God's Word.

The difference between the Jew and the Christian is that the Jew believes following the law is what saves them, or prompts God to save them, whereas Christians think it is Christ and his sacrifice that saves us. 

As I have noted many times, Christians would be on much firmer ground if they would dismiss the OT entirely and stick strictly with the NT.   I know that is logically impossible for a number of reasons but it would correlate with the "God is Love" notion and eliminate most of the logical problems with the Bible.

So, obviously the ceremonial laws aren't relevant to the Christian as something required, since Christ fulfills all of that. 

The contradiction between Jesus and Yahweh is rather staggering.   How people somehow push this aside as if it does not exist is fascinating.

Loving God takes precedence, and since love of God is described as not a feeling but, rather, obedience, Leviticus 20:13 still applies.

But why not view this as Jesus fulfilling the requirements of Leviticus entirely and go with a pure "love thy neighbor" view?    Homosexuals are part of Jesus' flock.   Seems to me if believers can (and do) cherry-pick the OT and change the meaning of words so that even the moral statement on slavery is not really what it seems, they could give the homosexual members of society a break and consider that fulfilled by love.    A little sarcasm here because this religious induced bigotry disgusts me.

Hope this answers your question. 

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Drakk.    Just so that you know, while I disagree with much of what you write, I value your insight and respect your attempts to honestly communicate your views.  

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Drakk.    Just so that you know, while I disagree with much of what you write, I value your insight and respect your attempts to honestly communicate your views.

You're welcome. 

I think the 'sticky' point for Jews is the operative word, "everlasting" and/or "forever."  Consider this and note the highlighted portions:

Galatians 2:

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas, and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

It is clear from passages like this that early Jewish believers and many Jewish believers today (as well as Seven Day Adventist churches) see in the scriptures necessity to continue their Jewish rituals, customs, and traditions as service to God. Whether or not they do it for purposes of 'steady' maintaining salvation or as expressions of their Jewishness I don't know.

Given God has not updated his Word, does it not make sense to you that people who read the Bible and see passages where, for ancient Hebrews, God orders the death penalty if two men engaged in sexual acts, cause one to possibly think that God frowns on homosexuality in general? It does indeed say something about God and His character as well as an indication of His objective morality.   So given this, why would anyone who believes the Bible divine hold the view that God is okay with homosexuality?

I don't understand the questions. I mean, I don't understand why you're asking them. The answer to the first is yes. God is against the whole LGBTQ thing. The second question would be better asked of CB, as I don't know how someone could read the Bible and think God would be okay with it. I don't understand the point you're going for here. 

Those who believe the New Covenant apologetics effectively focus on the NT and exclude the (bad parts of) OT.

Just a comment. I've never understood why people say this, since I don't know what they seem to think we exclude in the OT. Do you have an example?

Many believe the ceremonial law is not applicable, but we are bound by the Ten Commandments. 

Just picking this as an example (one of many).   How is it that people do not recognize that this is the result of human beings, after the fact, deciding what parts of the Bible apply to them?

Well, it is exactly that, but not in the way you seem to mean. What else would you expect? At first, the only people who had access to God were the Jews. Gentiles were excluded. Then Christ came. Believing in Christ doesn't make Christians Jews in the historical or racial sense so the Mosaic law would not apply to them. So, what does God want from Christians who aren't Jews? How are Christians supposed to seek God in light of what Christ has done for them? If they are really seeking God, of course they're going to try to understand what applies to them. That's actually what God wants them to do. Because in order to know what applies, one has to know God. They have to know Christ and what he did for them. That takes thinking. That takes critical thinking.

For instance, if the Jews ever get another Temple built and start the sacrifices again, would a Christian be required by God to go and sacrifice, even if the Jews would allow it? If we did, what would that say about Christ's sacrifice? Basically that he died for nothing because we'd be offering our own sacrifice on our own behalf rather than the one he made for us. 

Besides, it really isn't correct to say what parts of the Bible apply to Christians and which don't. That's actually a manner of speaking meaning whether or not we follow the law the way the Jews did. What is literally the case is, in what way, or how do we apply the Law that is relevant in light of being a Christian. In the just mentioned example of temple sacrifice, It isn't the case that it doesn't apply to us but, rather, in what way are Christians fulfilling the command. The answer is, through accepting Christ as savior and his sacrifice on our behalf that made that possible. 

Another example is wearing clothing of different fibers. One reason for that ceremonial law was to differentiate the Jew from the other cultures around them. Figuratively, not combining fibers meant they were not to try to incorporate other culture's ideas or gods into their own. Christians who reject the world, its ideas about how things should be and, instead, try to imitate Christ, fulfill this ceremonial law in the way that actually counts. In the heart and by the different life they live from those who live in the world. 

So, once again, it isn't a matter of which, in most cases, but how. Cases where the law is simply no longer relevant would be laws concerning slavery, since slavery is no longer part of our culture. 

In the large, this is what we see all the time.   People interpret the Bible as they see fit.   And they necessarily do this because the Bible, taken literally with a plain reading — even when relying upon the original meaning of the words and phrases as best one can do with biblical scholarship — is replete with problems.

I wouldn't expect that you'd see it any differently precisely because you do exactly what you describe here, with one addition. You read it assuming it is just the words of men so there's nothing deeper there than what the plain reading of men can come up with. We, however, believe there is something God is trying to communicate. A different understanding not natural to humans. If we are right, we're talking about the mind of the greatest possible being, after all. So everything in the Bible has to be taken in light of everything else in the Bible. It has to be taken as a whole. What does it say in light of who God says He is? It looks very different to me than it does to you and might be why you think we ignore or pretend parts of the OT aren't there. 

As I have noted many times, Christians would be on much firmer ground if they would dismiss the OT entirely and stick strictly with the NT.   I know that is logically impossible for a number of reasons but it would correlate with the "God is Love" notion and eliminate most of the logical problems with the Bible.

Don't really know what you mean, so, no comment. 

The contradiction between Jesus and Yahweh is rather staggering.   How people somehow push this aside as if it does not exist is fascinating.

What do you see as the contradiction?

But why not view this as Jesus fulfilling the requirements of Leviticus entirely and go with a pure "love thy neighbor" view?

Because of what it means to "love thy neighbor". Do you recall what I said the key was? 

The core of the answer concern's one desire for God. To know Him, please Him and be with Him as the kind of creature He intended us to be.

I don't think you realize the full implications of this. Being a Christian isn't for the purpose of having a fulfilling life, where God helps you get the things you really want. He isn't interested in helping you do what you think is right. Not interested with the things you meant for good or any of our human centric desires. He is interested in only one thing. Turning us into the image of His Son. Jesus was obedient to his Father in every detail of his life. He had no desire for anything other than what his Father desired for him. Nothing he did in his life was him doing his own thing. Nothing he said were his ideas. Jesus lived a life completely and totally devoted to his Father's will, without holding anything back, Even to carrying the sins of all the world through all time on his back. He died and was raised in power precisely because he rejected the world's ways and its self centered desires for the joy of God. 

Loving thy neighbor first requires loving God the way Jesus loved his Father. We can't do it like he could but that's the goal, until God makes it a reality in the end. If we do that, then loving our neighbor means doing what is right to them and for them according to what God wills, not what our human heart might wish or the wish of our 'neighbor'. 

According to Jesus' own words this world will end. At the end there will be judgement. If all God was looking for was for us to be nice to each other according to whatever rules we make up there'd be no need to destroy the world. No need of judgement. But that isn't the case. This world is unfixable and God will only tolerate it for so long. He has a better one in mind. Jesus message was that it is available to anyone who wants it, on his Father's terms.  

No need for sacrificing animals over and over again, for instance. For the others, moral and civil laws, how do specific laws apply to loving God and loving our Neighbors? Loving God takes precedence, and since love of God is described as not a feeling but, rather, obedience, Leviticus 20:13 still applies. What He desires for us takes precedence over what we might desire about a thing. Sexual matters are very important to God. One can't read the Bible and think anything else. He has very specific ideas about it. The same with murder, stealing, lying and the like. 

The 'opening' sentence, I am sure the animals are grateful for 'grace' and deliverance being extended to them! "Whew!"

Now then, let's drill down on this obedience narrative you are establishing for  Leviticus 20:13. I will ask you to explain when was the last time you saw a planned  execution of homosexuals played out, and/or explain why such execution should not play out today, or why you would agree in spirit to execution by some less barbaric means of homosexuals.

Do not just drop a "bomb" statement like it is an act of obedience to apply Leviticus 20:13 forever without explaining how practically it shall be done-by you, for you, through you!

It is clear from passages like this that early Jewish believers and many Jewish believers today (as well as Seven Day Adventist churches) see in the scriptures necessity to continue their Jewish rituals, customs, and traditions as service to God. Whether or not they do it for purposes of 'steady' maintaining salvation or as expressions of their Jewishness I don't know.

The word that is detrimental to your argument is the word "necessity". It isn't necessary to be circumcised, either as a Jew or a Gentile, for salvation. If Christ came to free of from sin by making a sacrifice that relieved us from the requirements of the written law which condemns them and us, what can be gained by circumcision? Where does Paul, who also preached to and converted Jews in other places, ever say that since they were Jews, they needed to be circumcised? 

Further, if you take the verses you provide here and add the context of the times in which they occurred, we aren't seeing Jews seeing the necessity of circumcision. We're seeing Jews who, for generations, lived under the Mosaic law suddenly living under a new covenant and trying to figure out what that meant, while at the same time trying to deal with the pressures the Jews who refused Christ were putting on them. Lastly, Paul opposed Peter precisely because Peter was trying to appease those who belonged to the circumcision group, even though he knew better. 

That isn't to say that a Jew can't be circumcised as long as it isn't for thinking he needs to for salvation. If he's just doing it as a connection to his Jewish roots, a sort of cultural thing, there's nothing wrong with it. Otherwise, he's saying Jesus didn't sacrifice well enough to save him on his own and needs a little extra help. 

Now then, let's drill down on this obedience narrative you are establishing for  Leviticus 20:13.

Why? What I was responding to was what TiG asked concerning God's view of homosexuality, not whether we should execute homosexuals. Christianity isn't about making anyone do anything. This is the Church age and our mission is to continue the work Christ started. That means our job isn't to condemn the world (that is, bring judgment/punishment) but, rather, continue Christ's saving work. When Christ returns, then Judgment comes, and people will see that there's no difference between Jesus and Yahweh. 

The need to select the portions of the Bible that actually apply, to define the meaning of scripture through sometimes exotic contextual interpretation, etc. persuades some of us to hold that if the Bible were divine, nobody really knows what it means.   

In fact, as much as I find him to be a clown, Ken Ham is actually on more solid ground than most here.   Ken Ham argues that if we do not take the Bible literally ("take God at His word" as he likes to say) then we are injecting our own views into God's Word.

I don't know enough about this Ken Ham to know if I should be insulted or not!  LOL!

The bible is old, yes, and it is what it is. I get your point, but we, believers, whom are 'immersed' in the Bible as a major part of our daily living do the best we can to find practical application to our daily lives. In a sense, we are a 'captured' people to the "Book," even as we struggle to make sense out of its ancient texts!

Finally. With all its highs and lows, blemishes and blushes, hits, misses, and near-misses: the Bible is what it is. That is, the only set of books that 'speak' to our "condition" as Christian believers.

The contradiction between Jesus and Yahweh is rather staggering.

Please elaborate.

I am in the middle of a Thanksgiving party so I need to be brief.

Briefly, Jesus is "Love thy neighbor" whereas Yahweh is "submit to my will".

There are, of course, plenty of details behind this.

the only people who had access to God were the Jews.

(Hebrews) you mean, right? There were/are Hebrew patriarchs and twelves tribes of Israel of which Judah (Jews) is one.

Of course.  Enjoy your party! Friend TiG, we're here for you the 'remainder' of the time. Indeed, you are good to even look this 'way' on a day such as you are having! Come back as soon as is reasonable!

The word that is detrimental to your argument is the word "necessity". It isn't necessary to be circumcised, either as a Jew or a Gentile, for salvation

I am not 'confounded' by this as a believer. The focus is on believing Jews who keep 'forever' covenants of the Jewish people. And, I want to be caution here in my 'tone' and attitude to not accidentally offend or 'accuse' any Jewish reader of this. I was 'quick' to point out I do not know what the motivation of the Messianic Jews or the Seven Day Adventists Church are for following Jewish customs, traditions, and other Old Testament 'rituals.'

That isn't to say that a Jew can't be circumcised as long as it isn't for thinking he needs to for salvation. If he's just doing it as a connection to his Jewish roots, a sort of cultural thing, there's nothing wrong with it. Otherwise, he's saying Jesus didn't sacrifice well enough to save him on his own and needs a little extra help

I have already expressed that I agree with your opinion on this. It is not my actions or belief that is occurring and causing the question. It is Messianic Jews (like James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter and the other apostles who remained in Jerusalem). Moreover, the Seventh Day Adventist are not generally Jewish people, and they do teach Adventists followers to honor God through feast days, Sabbath/s, holy days, and the like.

That means our job isn't to condemn the world (that is, bring judgment/punishment) but, rather, continue Christ's saving work. When Christ returns, then Judgment comes, and people will see that there's no difference between Jesus and Yahweh. 

You can not merely suggest Leviticus 20:13 is an act of obedience to God and at the same time not take into account what the verse details as a consequence for its directive not being followed!

Make it make sense!

Leviticus 20:13 is a 'work.' Moreover, you could be explicit to clarify if you believe all homosexuality is wrong, because you only accept that a heterosexual marriage is 'holy.'  Because, it is men, politics, and policy-making which have caused scores of homosexuals to develop a subculture of "un-marriage." That is, left to their own devices (unmolested/murdered) much of homosexual stereotypical living would fall by the wayside.

I am in the middle of a Thanksgiving party so I need to be brief.

Then please enjoy your party. I won't be responding to anything further from you until tomorrow night at the earliest. I may respond to CB a time or two, but not you. I want you to have time for a proper response and I need to get to be early today because I work tomorrow. Happy thanksgiving : )

You can not merely suggest Leviticus 20:13 is an act of obedience to God and at the same time not take into account what the verse details as a consequence for its directive not being followed! Make it make sense!

Okay. Can do. Since we are talking about the Mosaic covenant law then it only has the force of law for Mosaic covenant Jews for whom it was written. For Christians, it is an indication of how seriously God took sexual deviation from his intended plan for us. While God calls both homosexuality and shellfish abominations, eating shellfish would not result in the death penalty and would later be repealed.

Further, neither Jesus nor the rest of the Apostles or writers of the New Testament ever give an example where we are to go out and force or punish those who do not follow Christ. For those who claim to follow Christ but do not repent of what they need saving from in the first place, the harshest thing we are told to do is to treat them like an unbeliever, putting them outside the community of believers until they repent. 

Leviticus 20:13 is a 'work.' Moreover, you could be explicit to clarify if you believe all homosexuality is wrong, because you only accept that a heterosexual marriage is 'holy.'

Aside from the fact that it is God who decides what constitutes holy marriage, not me, I don't know how I could be more explicit than I already have been in this and past conversations. While having homosexual feelings is not wrong in the sense that practicing homosexuality is, it is just as wrong as the heterosexual who feels the urge to try to have sex with every woman he desires. Our hearts are corrupt and there's no getting around that. What God wants is a repentant heart. That is, not just abstinence from what we desire but the desire for a different heart that doesn't conflict with God's will.  

Because, it is men, politics, and policy-making which have caused scores of homosexuals to develop a subculture of "un-marriage." That is, left to their own devices (unmolested/murdered) much of homosexual stereotypical living would fall by the wayside.

Which is completely unrelated to the sentence that came before it. This simply reflects man's desire to find a way around what God has to say concerning homosexuality. It's usually put, as you do, in terms of "loving others as Christ did" and Christ giving us 'liberty,' which is a total distortion of what Christ preached. It is linked to the idea that what we do in the flesh doesn't matter because only the spirit does. That is, as long as you have some sort of 'right idea' or 'motive' behind your actions, it's okay with God. 

In reality, in truth, Christ's message was "Repent, for the kingdom of God has come near!" Jesus 'hung out' with sinners not because he was okay with what they were doing. He wasn't as evidenced by him constantly telling them to leave their life of sin and other things he said about those who fooled themselves into thinking they were following him. The reason he hung out with sinners was because they were more aware of their sinfulness than those who were self-righteous, like the Pharisee. In the end, the message you give or imply is that Jesus saves so you're okay. 

Happy Thanksgiving to you as well Drakk.

Aside from the fact that it is God who decides what constitutes holy marriage, not me, I don't know how I could be more explicit than I already have been in this and past conversations. While having homosexual feelings is not wrong in the sense that practicing homosexuality is, it is just as wrong as the heterosexual who feels the urge to try to have sex with every woman he desires.

Apples and oranges comparison fallacy.

First, homosexuality is not a feeling since it spans a lifetime and homosexuals are devoted to the lifestyle. As you are well aware feelings go and come.

Second, you have not stated in this discussion what is wrong, per se with homosexuality—for homosexuals. Two people of the same sex not being able to 'bear' a child/ren, understandingly notwithstanding.  What else?

Third, you nor I have never known a single generation of homosexuals which did not suffer under OPPRESSION and SUPPRESSION from a heterosexual majority. That is, homosexuals raised to 'walk in the light of peace and quiet of decency' in a same-sex pairing without interference. You and I have centuries of heterosexual marriage relationships which are given every possible benefit men (and women to a degree) can fashion for themselves.

Finally, therefore, what you are calling an "urge" is nothing more than lust leading to fornication, because fornication was all that two people of the same sex could hope to be allowed even in taboo-ish  amounts,  to transpire between them.

Even now, I wonder if you can reflect on a homosexual marriage relationship in order to give it a fair 'apple to apple' comparison to a heterosexual marriage relationship (where the man and/or woman is unable to procreate.)

That is, not just abstinence from what we desire but the desire for a different heart that doesn't conflict with God's will.

Paul, fully comprehended he was a 'fully functioning man" with passion he translated into his work for the kingdom—Paul in his writing thought Jesus' return was "imminent" too. Why would Paul NOT think a return was so since Jesus personally conferred spiritual power and authorization upon him ?

I Corinthians 9

3 This is my defense to those who would examine me . 4  Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5  Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? t Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?

. . . .

Nevertheless , y we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that a those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. 15  But I have made no use of any of these rights .

Also Paul spoke of an unidentified "messenger from Satan" in his own flesh for which God did not choose to render 'harmless.' Thus, Paul kept his own counsel and discipline on how to manage that situation. So yes, there are "conflicts" for which God does not deliver even people of faith.

This simply reflects man's desire to find a way around what God has to say concerning homosexuality. It's usually put, as you do, in terms of "loving others as Christ did" and Christ giving us 'liberty,' which is a total distortion of what Christ preached. It is linked to the idea that what we do in the flesh doesn't matter because only the spirit does. That is, as long as you have some sort of 'right idea' or 'motive' behind your actions, it's okay with God. 

You have not qualitatively or quantifiably stated what God says about homosexuality.as I point out in 1.1.138. I mean, you can say anything is 'sufferable' for God-especially when it is not you have to live it out. And I have been celibate for decades now!  Moreover, according to the grace that has been extended to me, I may stay celibate until my end however long that is. But, my 'endurance' and discipline while empowered by Spirit has no bearing on other homosexuals for whom no 'gifting' of Spirit has been given!

What you are asking of unbelieving homosexuals to accept as 'gospel' is beyond their ability to righteously complete.

Do you understand this?

You know what God established as holy and acceptable sexual relations for man. Jesus confirms it in Matthew 19

⁴  “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ ^{[ a ] 5}  and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ^{[ b ]} ? ⁶  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

You do not argue against me, but God, who establishes the way we should go. 

What you are asking of unbelieving homosexuals to accept as 'gospel' is beyond their ability to righteously complete.

Last thing I'm going to say on this subject. What unbelievers do is not my concern. Your false teachings are, since you claim to know Christ. Jesus teaches that we must deny ourselves and follow him. You teach keeping one's life is okay with God but Jesus says those who try to keep their life will lose it, while those who lose it for his sake will keep it. 

Put another way, Jesus calls on us to reject the world and its ways. He is speaking of the human system based on the evil desires of our selfish hearts. All those things will pass away. They will all be destroyed and thrown into the fire. Spoken more plainly, the only things in a person's life that will survive are those that come from loving obedience to God. 

You need to decide what you want more, Christ or the desires of your own unregenerate heart. The things you teach about what you call liberty are not from Christ so it's pretty clear what you have chosen so far. I advise you to reexamine what it means to be a follower of Jesus. 

How dare you preach to me about what you perceive as my "unregenerated" heart! For a moment you and I were talking together, and then you had to go spoil it. All I can say to you is you are out of your damn 'lane.' 

You turned to attack me simply because I wrote to you that you should leave room for God to work 'matters' out with unbelieving people? Why? I asked you to explain why you consider Leviticus 20:13 to be obedience when you explicitly state that Jesus grants salvation on the basis of faith alone?

I ask for more detail (drilling down) on the Leviticus remark from you, And you attack me - calling me "unregenerated"?!!!

And vulgarly so. But, without 'losing my salvation' over you I will simply tell you again:

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Especially, since you have to fall back on platitudes as a defense for practical living as a believer. My best advice to you as a believer would be you should stop trying to put people into "bondage" because you wish or accept bondage for yourself! Actually, I don't know what you are "into" because you fall back on generic expressions of faith without any real sense of humanity being brought into it.

For instance, it may be clarifying to know if you have always been a Christian believer since childhood into your old age; or if you lived in the world at any point alongside as agnostic or nonbeliever.

Because the difference could have meaning on how you arrive at your perspective.

God, however, finds people right were they are. Therefore, in conclusion, you don't get to call me out as un-regenerated you ridiculous person! You have no heaven or hell or power to "generate" spiritually anyone. Your role is to "plant," or "water," and behold as God (alone) gives the increase.

Which is done by showing love and kindness and mercy to others-believing and unbelieving and let God do the job of soul-saviing!

Keep overstepping your 'bounds' with me and I will keep putting you back within bounds where I, you, belong!

What unbelievers do is not my concern.

Is that so or are you telling an untruth? It strikes me that you expect EVERYBODY to live a Christian life-'called or not called' to it! Where am I am wrong in my  assessment. Please proceed. . . .

 Jesus teaches that we must deny ourselves and follow him. You teach keeping one's life is okay with God,

I have tried to tactfully 'alert' and inform you of the changes in me that have been ongoing for what in 2023 will be 30 years! Including my life of celibacy, which I continue to give a larger share of life to than my time as living seeking 'partners,' and still it goes over your head or you refuse to give respect where it is due. That is offensive. It is insulting. You (used) to share your 'state' of celibacy—how many years were you or are you continually celibate? I bring this up only because you keep 'retreating' to bogus insults and misrepresentations about me- instead of applying the critical thinking you 'argue' you represent (here).

So where do you get this notion you espouse to others here that I am not "denying myself"? Just because I don't reject the world and push it away and mistreat (which you call fair treatment) my unbelieving and believing homosexual neighbor as s/he does not outright reject/deny themselves?

I was church-raised and baptized at eight years old so you could say that I was "saved" and like the prodigal son, I went out into the world and years later returned to my faith. . . and have been in it every day since. I likely have a better understanding of the value of returning because of the years of experience developed by being away.

Perhaps you have it twisted. That is, I presume, if you have never 'departed' from the Church some how it makes you more 'equipped' to serve because of some perception of 'time spent in grade/service' - it does not. Why? Because it is God who calls and ranks the servants in the kingdom.

Well, since you never ask, I will tell you my view. God calls people out of the world. I 'let' God be God to do what God is perfectly capable of doing since before I got here and will do for "a thousand years" after I am gone-unaided by me. My role is to be peaceful and nice to all I encounter ("plant") so that when they look for my Christianity they also will see my humanity "in me." Not some prudish clown or "freak," who ultimately ends up being fraudulent because s/he forgot to be nice while 'whipping' and abusing people to come into faith alignment with God/Jesus.

Paul exampled being Paul who went in and out amongst all sorts of people, in order to save some (not all) he encountered. He did this by sharing what he had in his good mannerism-without condemning, judging, or abusing 'the world' for Christ sake.

Critical thinking coupled with common sense will inform you that God does not need me, you, or anybody else to put people 'down' that God might save one day.

I tell you this in this manner, because you cleverly or dismissively refuse to ask me what my views are, before you try to rebuke. Well, there you have a part of it and rather loosely at that!

How dare you preach to me about what you perceive as my "unregenerated" heart!

You complain when I ignore you and you complain when I don't. Hmm.

In any case, you can tell a tree by its fruit. Your post, 1.1.138 , makes it clear that you reject God's clear teaching concerning sexual deviancy.  You condemn conservative Christians who stand by God's clear and unambiguous word on the subject. You characterize any such Biblical stance as hate, rather than simply standing by God's truth. 

Concerning me, you consistently made up outright lies about what my position is and created other positions you claim are mine out of thin air. Another example of the fruit you bear. That, I can easily tolerate. But the worst thing about this is that you teach your false gospel to others in this place. In Christ's name you lead people to destruction, if anyone listens to you. That, I can't tolerate because I care about homosexuals as much as anyone else. Enough to have the courage to tell them about what God says, should one ask me. 

So, sorry. Your indignity doesn't phase me in the least. I dislike what you are doing but I don't dislike you, let alone hate you. I am warning you for your sake, not because you personally offended me. I believe you're offending God, so I must warn you. What you choose to do with it is up to you. 

I don't understand the questions.

I was establishing that in your view, the biblical God of the OT morally disapproves of homosexual acts and, by implication, homosexuality.

I've never understood why people say this, since I don't know what they seem to think we exclude in the OT. Do you have an example?

People have (for years) explained away uncomfortable portions of the OT by claiming them part of the OC and thus no longer applicable.    Common examples are slavery and homosexuality but you can extend that to all of Mosaic law.   FYI, I never have bought the OC / NC argument anyway since Christians are as a whole unclear on what falls under the OC and what falls under the NC and, indeed, what Jesus' fulfilling of the OC means in specific terms.

In net, the NC tends to be used as a method for overlooking parts of the OT that are awkward (if not impossible) to explain away.

What else would you expect?

Well, it should be apparent that if human beings are making decisions (by committee even) to determine what part of "God's Word" makes the cut, the chances of screwing up the divine message (especially given your argument that understanding this message is deeply contextual) is high.

What is literally the case is, in what way, or how do we apply the Law that is relevant in light of being a Christian. 

Seems to me this illustrates that people interpret the Bible in a manner that is suitable to them.   One can apply all the critical thinking possible, but in the end concluding the 'true interpretation' for the various vague areas of the Bible is highly subjective.   (And that assumes there even is a true interpretation.)

Cases where the law is simply no longer relevant would be laws concerning slavery, since slavery is no longer part of our culture. 

Laws concerning slavery are indeed legally irrelevant when a society no longer has slavery.   But the question is never whether or not God wants societies to have legalized slavery but rather God's objective morality in regards to slavery.   In short:  God has never deemed slavery immoral.   There is no "thou shalt not own another human being as property" commandment or rule.   The argument that God (as defined by the Bible) considers slavery to be moral is very strongly evidenced by the Bible itself.   Even Jesus fails to denounce slavery as immoral.

When slavery was part of our culture, people could (and did) argue that the Bible supports the practice.   If slavery were still in effect in our nation, people would almost certainly justify the practice with the Bible.   Just as some today justify the abuse (if not murder) of homosexuals with the Bible ("God hates fags").   Homosexuality is legal in our society so Leviticus 20:13 should, per your reasoning, not apply in a legal sense.   But the moral implications of Leviticus 20:13 persist because, as with slavery, God has never offered a correction ... never updated His Word to correlate with modern society.

We can always look at the Bible through the lens of our modern society mores, values and culture to determine applicability.   If so, we would reject slavery and anti-homosexual actions as no longer relevant.   But doing so necessarily places human beings as the filtering authority for God's Word.   That is like having a defendant be the interpreter of law.

So everything in the Bible has to be taken in light of everything else in the Bible. It has to be taken as a whole. 

That is logical but that is not what is consistently done.   Yes context is key, but context is also used to dismiss parts of the Bible that are uncomfortable.   For example, we can look at the overarching context of the NT to establish the notion that God (Jesus) wants everyone to love each other and treat each other with suitable respect.   Slavery (owning another human being as property that can be bought/sold and passed to descendants via inheritance) logically contradicts this love thy neighbor notion.  So one can argue that all the verses where God supports human property, beatings, purchases, etc. are not as they seem ... that God has special reasons for opining on slavery and never condemning it because ... as a whole ... love thy neighbor.   Not (at all) persuasive.   It is akin to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

Don't really know what you mean, so, no comment. 

Stated differently, the NT presents a kind, gentle God (the Son hypostasis) who loves and provides.   Most of the Christian religions focus on the NT and present their messages in terms of Jesus.   If there was no OT and the only books of the Bible in existence were the NT, then the teachings of these Christian religions would have far fewer awkward problems with the Bible.   Not only would all the issues with Yahweh commanding murder, rape, etc. be inexistent but we would not have the fundamental contradictions brought forth by an omniscient, omnipotent deity being surprised, angered, etc. (and thus no need to attempt to claim those adjectives do not mean what the words mean but rather are just a way for God to speak in language we understand ... yet using words with meaning that cannot be taken as such).

What do you see as the contradiction?

In general, coarse terms:  Jesus is the god of Love.   Yahweh is the god of obedience.   Imagine Jesus instructing his followers to conquer their enemies and kill all beings except for virgins who they can keep for themselves.   Imagine Jesus (who is presented as the savior who suffered and died for all sins) becoming disappointed and angry and then wiping out the planet (all life) spare a few starter beings.

My question is:  how can you NOT see the contradiction?  

Loving thy neighbor first requires loving God the way Jesus loved his Father. 

That does not address my question as to why Leviticus need exist.   Your answer simply forces the obedience aspect into the love of Jesus.   Take out the obedience notion (as I suggested) and you have the loving God (Jesus) who is at odds with Leviticus.   Do you see Jesus demanding that two men be murdered because they engaged in a sexual act?

But that isn't the case. This world is unfixable and God will only tolerate it for so long. He has a better one in mind. Jesus message was that it is available to anyone who wants it, on his Father's terms.  

God's plan then is quite bizarre.  He has total control yet created a world that is unfixable.   He wiped out almost all life and then later suborned Jesus to suffer and die for all sins.   But the world remains unfixable.   

Nothing seems to work properly.   The question always remains:  why would an omnipotent, omniscient entity intentionally create an unfixable world, destroy it, have Jesus suffer an sacrifice, and then have one final judgment.   The creations of this entity are bound to whatever God wills anyway so why bother with all this pain and suffering and just create the world as He wishes?   The omnipotent and omniscience attributes are killers.

What unbelievers do is not my concern.

Is that so or are you telling an untruth?

Within the context of this conversation, it is the truth. That is, this conversation we are having is about you, not them. 

It strikes me that you expect EVERYBODY to live a Christian life-'called or not called' to it! Where am I am wrong in my  assessment. Please proceed. . . .

I want everybody to be called to Christianity. Any Christian would. Obviously, that isn't realistic. Since this is so, and because the Bible gives ample examples of how we are to consider non-believers, my stance is that I can hardly expect non-believers to live by the law of Christ, whether they are homosexuals, humanists, atheists or some other religion, if they don't follow him. I would never consider for a moment being a part of the Dominionist movement, for instance. I would never take part in an anti-homosexual, or any anti-anything not Christian thing. It is not my job to force God on people. I've told you all this more than once, yet you seem to prefer your imagination. 

I have tried to tactfully 'alert' and inform you of the changes in me that have been ongoing for what in 2023 will be 30 years! Including my life of celibacy, which I continue to give a larger share of life to than my time as living seeking 'partners, 'and still it goes over your head or you refuse to give respect where it is due.

I have been celibate for 32 years. More than half my life. I don't consider it a badge of honor or something I should get points for as it is simply my duty to God not to fornicate. I would not expect God to give me points for not going out and killing people for the same reason. If it helps you, I'm glad you have remained celibate. i know how difficult it can be. 

But here's the issue, CB. If God were to give me points for being celibate (which I doubt), how many do you imagine I might get if, at the same time, I was telling people who fornicate that Jesus loves them in spite of that and that he died so we can have liberty? More, that all those nasty conservative Christian haters are just trying to enslave you under their rules? You're okay. Just keep doing what you're doing and have faith that Jesus will get to you in time. 

Personally, I don't see any points coming my way. 

So where do you get this notion you espouse to others here

Blame yourself for what the others hear. I practically begged you to do this in private but you refused. Even when I reminded you that Christians should not air their laundry in front of non-believers. Personally, I think you thought you could accomplish... something, I don't know what, that you wanted everyone to see. I just took it as one more piece of evidence that you don't actually follow Christ. At least, not the way he tells us to. 

that I am not "denying myself"? Just because I don't reject the world and push it away and mistreat (which you call fair treatment) my unbelieving and believing homosexual neighbor as s/he does not outright reject/deny themselves?

Not rejecting the world, even though Christ clearly tells us to, is practically the same as not denying yourself. When the Bible speaks of the world, it's talking about the man-made systems we have created apart from God out of the selfish desires of our heart. Denying oneself for Christ's sake means denying that part of us that wants to be a part of that system, even if we don't participate in it. Basically, denying everything about ourselves and, instead, focusing on the new life we receive from God when we accept Christ's salvation. 

Rejecting the world doesn't mean we pretend it isn't there, though. Obviously, it is. Nor does it mean the mistreatment of those still in the world, unless you consider being truthful about what God says as mistreatment. Nothing I can do about that if you do. What we are supposed to be doing as believers is using every opportunity, whether pleasant or unpleasant, to become more like Christ. Meaning, to do what he does, with the motives he does, for the purpose he does. That's really important, CB. It isn't to figure out how to fit our own wants and desires into that image. It means discarding all of that and replacing it with everything Jesus is. Jesus wasn't cruel or uncompassionate to the sinners he hung out with but he didn't hesitate to tell them they needed to repent or face eternal destruction. You can try to do it your way but it won't work. Throughout the Bible, God makes it clear there is only His way. 

Perhaps you have it twisted. That is, I presume, if you have never 'departed' from the Church some how it makes you more 'equipped' to serve because of some perception of 'time spent in grade/service' - it does not. Why? Because it is God who calls and ranks the servants in the kingdom.

I've told you this before. I'll tell you again. I've called myself Christian all my life, but I was one in name only. I was baptized as a Roman Catholic as an infant. Spent the first five years of school in a Catholic one before the parish I was in pissed my parents off one too many times and put me in a public school. Mom tried to keep church going with a Protestant church but that didn't last more than a year. Like you, I went my own way for many years before events made me realize I either needed to stop believing or take it seriously. So, basically the same story as you. 

Well, since you never ask, I will tell you my view. God calls people out of the world. I 'let' God be God to do what God is perfectly capable of doing since before I got here and will do for "a thousand years" after I am gone-unaided by me. My role is to be peaceful and nice to all I encounter ("plant") so that when they look for my Christianity they also will see my humanity "in me." Not some prudish clown or "freak," who ultimately ends up being fraudulent because s/he forgot to be nice while 'whipping' and abusing people to come into faith alignment with God/Jesus.

Okay. Here's mine. I hate the phrase, "I brought x people to Christ," because, like you, I believe God calls people to Him. I don't bring them. However, He doesn't do it unaided. He uses His servants in helping those He calls to find Him. Not because He needs to, but because that is how He chooses to work. Through us, like He has always intended and always has. 

My role in this, first and foremost, is to keep my eyes on Christ so that I can live life as close to the manner he intends as possible in order to avoid hypocrisy, which is a witness killer. Basically, take every opportunity to grow into the fruit of the Spirt. Second, I need to know what the Bible says, not what I want it to say, so that I can give reasons for my faith. Third, when opportunity presents itself, tell the lost about Christ truthfully, without fear of offending sensibilities. I don't mean be offensive or insensitive, but Jesus said we would be hated because of his name. There's no easy way to tell someone that they are sinners deserving of Hell and, unless they repent and have Christ as their savior, that's where they're heading. 

Of course, there's a right way and a wrong way to do this. Standing there with a Bible in one hand and the other a fist shaking in their face would be an example of the wrong way, most times. I think the best way to do it is not to talk about them but, rather, myself. How I came to believe these things. How I saw myself on the road to Hell until God reached out to me and saved me. They'll get the point. I don't tell them they are sinners, I tell them we all are. Because we are. I tell them that even though I am saved, I'm still a sinner. I put myself on their level because I am on their level, in that respect. There's still sin in my heart and will be until Christ comes back or he calls me home. 

Paul exampled being Paul who went in and out amongst all sorts of people, in order to save some (not all) he encountered. He did this by sharing what he had in his good mannerism-without condemning, judging, or abusing 'the world' for Christ sake.

If you think this you seriously need to reread Paul. 

Critical thinking coupled with common sense will inform you that God does not need me, you, or anybody else to put people 'down' that God might save one day.

It isn't putting them down. They are already down, so to speak. Guilty before God, as are all who do not belong to Christ. It's called telling them the truth about their situation. It is throwing them a lifeline. You're afraid of not being seen as nice. To follow Christ, you need to get over that. Telling them the truth means that many will hate you, even though you do not hate them. No matter how peaceful and patiently or lovingly you tell them the truth, most of them will hate you for it. They don't want to face the idea that they could be so wrong. Have to give up what they desire in their dark hearts. Not be god of their own life. 

I tell you this in this manner, because you cleverly or dismissively refuse to ask me what my views are, before you try to rebuke. Well, there you have a part of it and rather loosely at that!

I know what your views are because you espouse them all the time and I listen. I pay attention to what you say. Are you unaware that you're constantly talking about them, especially when I'm ignoring you? Do you think I don't read what you say because I don't respond? 

Hogwash. It is pathetic when a true believer tries to manipulate another true believer with misdirection. I asked you:

In any case, you can tell a tree by its fruit. Your post, 1.1.138 , makes it clear that you reject God's clear teaching concerning sexual deviancy.  You condemn conservative Christians who stand by God's clear and unambiguous word on the subject. You characterize any such Biblical stance as hate, rather than simply standing by God's truth. 

I stand with religious freedom to 'do' whatever it is a church wishes to do if it passes state and federal laws. So get that straight once and for all.

What I have been trying to get you to tacitly accept is that once you step across your religious threshold, theocracy 'mode' ends; not for you personally but you enter the 'kingdom of this world' —where others exist, move, and have their being.

The Church has limited 'standing' in the world on worldly matters.

That is where our differences in viewpoint manifest. You are evidently trying to tell everybody to live out your biblical concepts be they believer or unbeliever. I am reminding you that you have no authority to expect unbelievers to do anything spiritual. Of course, at that point, in every discussion you 'run to attack me' and condemn what you know not-for surely you can not know my heart. And it is my heart that God sees even as he see your very own! Moving on!

I lived in the world, I know what I am speaking about. I don't have to be ashamed of my past experiences, and it is my past experiences, in order to serve God. More importantly, I don't have to put up a facade to pretend to dislike homosexuals in order to be spiritual and in service to God. I am homosexual by nature. I am convinced of it actually every day of my life.

I do not have to 'rule' against people in the world who are homosexual. Why? Because there but for the grace of God go me! I am not a fraud. Who looks down my nose at others. I have been through too much. God saved me. Guess what?

God can save this one and that one - in God's own time. And all I have to do is have faith/confidence in God. That makes life and death eventually just that much easier for me.

I will end this one here as I am distracted by something I must do immediately.

People have (for years) explained away uncomfortable portions of the OT by claiming them part of the OC and thus no longer applicable.    Common examples are slavery and homosexuality but you can extend that to all of Mosaic law.

I take "explained away" to mean we don't interpret it the way you do. Some things logically are no longer applicable. Slavery, for instance, since we've rejected slavery. Homosexuality isn't an example of explaining away as it is still relevant, in our view. 

FYI, I never have bought the OC / NC argument anyway since Christians are as a whole unclear on what falls under the OC and what falls under the NC and, indeed, what Jesus' fulfilling of the OC means in specific terms. In net, the NC tends to be used as a method for overlooking parts of the OT that are awkward (if not impossible) to explain away.

We'll have to just disagree on this. 

What else would you expect?

Well, it should be apparent that if human beings are making decisions (by committee even) to determine what part of "God's Word" makes the cut, the chances of screwing up the divine message (especially given your argument that understanding this message is deeply contextual) is high.

Oh, I see. Yes, I can see why you'd see it this way. 

What is literally the case is, in what way, or how do we apply the Law that is relevant in light of being a Christian. 

Seems to me this illustrates that people interpret the Bible in a manner that is suitable to them.   One can apply all the critical thinking possible, but in the end concluding the 'true interpretation' for the various vague areas of the Bible is highly subjective.   (And that assumes there even is a true interpretation.)

In my opinion, you see it this way because you're on the outside, looking in as you walk by. Also, it isn't real to you so how else could you see it? Obviously, some do interpret the Bible to suit them. Copeland and his like are a good example. Progressive churches are another. The United Methodist Church is undergoing a schism over the LGTBQ issue.

But what you state doesn't assume there's a true interpretation. What you said suggests that there is not. Because if you assume there's a true interpretation, which I think is the logical assumption, then the subjective interpretations must be explained some other way. There is a true interpretation of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. You might get 100 people who've read it in the same room talking about it and have different interpretations for what some particular event meant, but the author certainly had a particular interpretation in mind. Therefore, of the different interpretations expressed among the 100, those that differ from what the author intended is most likely explained by poor reading comprehension or personal desire for that interpretation. While not quite that simple, I think that generally explains why you see different interpretations.

Laws concerning slavery are indeedlegallyirrelevant when a society no longer has slavery.   But the question is never whether or not God wants societies to have legalized slavery but rather God's objective morality in regards to slavery.   In short:  God has never deemed slavery immoral.

That would be incorrect. What you mean is that He never made a specific command concerning slavery as being an abomination. But we've had this debate before. I won't be changing your mind this time, either. 

That is logical but that is not what is consistently done.   Yes context is key, but context is also used to dismiss parts of the Bible that are uncomfortable.   For example, we can look at the overarching context of the NT to establish the notion that God (Jesus) wants everyone to love each other and treat each other with suitable respect.

That is SO not the overarching context of the NT. It isn't even in the ballpark. 

Stated differently, the NT presents a kind, gentle God (the Son hypostasis) who loves and provides.   Most of the Christian religions focus on the NT and present their messages in terms of Jesus.   If there was no OT and the only books of the Bible in existence were the NT, then the teachings of these Christian religions would have far fewer awkward problems with the Bible.

Oh, man : ) There is no difference between God in the OT and Jesus in the NT. God in the OT was just as kind and gentle as Jesus is perceived to be, somewhat incorrectly. For some reason, people misunderstand John 12:47...

“If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

to mean that Jesus isn't going to Judge us. They seem to overlook all the places where he says he will. What he meant was that he wasn't there at that time, to judge but to save, by dying on the cross. 

What do you see as the contradiction?

In general, coarse terms:  Jesus is the god ofLove.   Yahweh is the god ofobedience.   Imagine Jesus instructing his followers to conquer their enemies and kill all beings except for virgins who they can keep for themselves.   Imagine Jesus (who is presented as the savior who suffered and died for all sins) becoming disappointed and angry and then wiping out the planet (all life) spare a few starter beings.

My question is:  how can you NOT see the contradiction? 

Oh. well that's easily answered. Because I see these events differently than you do, therefore I would not describe them as you do to begin with. 

That does not address my question as to why Leviticus need exist.   Your answer simply forces the obedience aspect into the love of Jesus.   Take out the obedience notion (as I suggested) and you have the loving God (Jesus) who is at odds with Leviticus.   Do you see Jesus demanding that two men be murdered because they engaged in a sexual act?

This would be a good example of what I am talking about. You question Leviticus' existence, calling the penalty murder. You do so because it violates your moral code. It violates what you consider reasonable. You do not think it reasonable to even object what two consenting adults do with themselves. Understandable, given your beliefs. However, I do not consider Leviticus to be unjust, nor would I call it murder. 

Let's talk about the death penalty for a moment. Not the one in Leviticus, but in our legal code. Why is it there? It is because we consider some crimes so heinous, committed by the most degenerate heart, that it is justified. We also do it in hopes of deterring similar actions in others (whether it works or not.) Let's say a man who kidnapped several children, raped, tortured and killed them. I think most people would feel justice was served by such an execution. 

It is the same thing with God. The only difference is you believe your morals are superior, a strange position to take, given your belief that morality is subjective and not objective. In any case, Leviticus is just because Israel entered a covenant with God, promising to do all He commanded. God commanded murderers be put to death for what they did to one of His image bearers. It was an indication of how seriously He took murder. He commanded death for adulterers and homosexuals to indicate how seriously He took the proper application of the gift of sex. The penalty wasn't simply because they offended His sense of morality but, also, He did not want the rest of Israel to be infected with those ideas and actions. The same with idolatry. 

So, because you see it the way you do doesn't mean I must. Just because you think it's murder doesn't mean it is, unless you can establish your authority to do so. Therefore, I can't really answer your question as asked, since I do not think it murder. When Jesus comes back, yes, I can see him ordering their death, but not for practicing homosexuality specifically, but because they refused to repent and refused his offer of salvation, spurning his sacrifice on the cross and treating it as of no value. 

God's plan then is quite bizarre.  He has total control yet created a world that is unfixable.   He wiped out almost all life and then later suborned Jesus to suffer and die for all sins.   But the world remains unfixable.    Nothing seems to work properly.   The question always remains:  why would an omnipotent, omniscient entity intentionally create an unfixable world, destroy it, have Jesus suffer an sacrifice, and then have one final judgment.   The creations of this entity are bound to whatever God wills anyway so why bother with all this pain and suffering and just create the world as He wishes?   The omnipotent and omniscience attributes are killers.

I can understand why you feel this way. I once wondered the same, myself, more or less. God didn't work the way I thought He should. I mean, He's God, right? Can't He just make everything right? in those days, the Bible didn't make much sense to me, either. I'd try to read it but other than "love thy neighbor" most of it seemed to be incomprehensible and I'd just put it down and it might be a year before I picked it up again, only to put it down again. All this stuff happening, especially in the OT, and it always read like there was no plot. Why did this guy do that? Why didn't God punish this guy? Why did He punish this other one? He was only trying to do the right thing, wasn't he? 

Then, one day, during a really hard time in my life, I was staring at two different roads. One i knew led to Hell, in this life let alone the next, but the other seemed impossible. At that point, I almost didn't care anymore. I was so tired of trying I seriously considered the possibility that God didn't exist after all. I'm not exaggerating. I came really close to just letting it all go. 

The point, TiG, is that I really understand what you're saying here. I really didn't know God. I believed He existed, but at the time, my faith truly was what you always claim it is. Blind and without evidence. I had no real reason, nothing I could point to, to justify the belief. I neither understood the Bible any better than you do nor did I know God personally. I just believed because that's what I was raised to believe. Well, that, and I did feel there had to be a God, even though I couldn't tell you why. 

In the end, standing in that fork in the road* I began thinking one was going to lead to suicide, eventually. My life was pretty bad and was getting worse. But I was afraid of the other road, too. I wasn't too thrilled about becoming a "Jesus freak", either. I wasn't sure I could give up everything in my life or even what that meant. I wasn't thrilled about what it would do to my relationships. In a sense, that road, too, felt like suicide. I wouldn't be me, anymore. Like I'd become this mindless religious drone or something. 

Again, the point is that I wasn't always this way. I was once something quite different. I didn't believe what I do now, I certainly didn't understand anything at all.

Now? I understand just how wrong I was about everything except believing God existed and that, surprisingly, it is suicide, of a sort. But it's also rebirth. Jesus said unless we are born again we can't enter the kingdom of God. This is why you don't see what I do and why you see it as you do. 

Anyway. This is already too long, but I thought you deserved a reply. 

* Strange, but looking back, that fork always seemed to be there, no matter how long I walked down the wrong road, when I took a moment to look up. 

So there you have it explicitly stated from your keyboard.

Sorry, no. Let's look at what was said in actual context, shall we? Leviticus was not the subject. Rather, the relevance of OT law to Christians, was. Or, since he was responding to a discussion you and I were having about whether Messianic Jews need to follow OT laws, that is the way I took his question.

TiG made his first comment about something I had said to you. 

Why would God obligate them to still having to carry the weight of the Old Covenant when Jesus came to free us of it? (Me to CB)

Should all religious people ignore all Mosaic law as irrelevant (in your opinion)?

So, for example, would it be wrong to hold that Leviticus 20:13 is still in effect?

If not, how are people supposed to interpret these portions of the OT? (TiG) 1.1.115

I made my reply. TiG replied back, supplying the quote from me he found most relevant:

It says something about who God is and His character , what He expected from the Jews and how they could someday be with Him. The purpose of the Law and for the Jews themselves was that God would reveal Himself to the rest of the world through them. (Me)

Given God has not updated his Word, does it not make sense to you that people who read the Bible and see passages where, for ancient Hebrews, God orders the death penalty if two men engaged in sexual acts, cause one to possibly think that God frowns on homosexuality in general?

It does indeed say something about God and His character as well as an indication of His objective morality.   So given this, why would anyone who believes the Bible divine hold the view that God is okay with homosexuality? (TiG) 1.1.120

Here I highlight what I was speaking of concerning the relevance of the OT to Christians. I was not speaking about Leviticus 20:13 in the specific sense and it would be unreasonable to assume so, since the conversation I was having with you and that led to TiG's question was my stating that Messianic Jews and Christians were not under the Mosaic law. Therefore, it would not be reasonable or logical to take what I said as "We as Christians, are not under the law of Moses but we need to execute Jews because of the law of Moses." 

As far as I can tell, TiG did not misunderstand the context of what I said. That is, he seems to understand that what I was speaking of was that, for Christians, the OT reveals things about God, not that I was talking about a need to carry out the law, which, considering my statement that we aren't under the law, would be a ridiculous claim to make. Something that seems to escape you. 

So, because it does, you present what you think is evidence. Namely:

DRAKK' wrote:   1.1.119       Loving God takes precedence, and since love of God is described as not a feeling but, rather, obedience, Leviticus 20:13 still applies. What He desires for us takes precedence over what we might desire about a thing.

Which totally takes what I said out of context. In context of my conversation with TiG, this says God views homosexuality, how did TiG put it? 

God orders the death penalty if two men engaged in sexual acts, cause one to possibly think that God frowns on homosexuality in general?

And:

So given this, why would anyone who believes the Bible divine hold the view that God is okay with homosexuality?

TiG seems to have no problem understanding the subject under discussion isn't the penalty but, rather, God's view on homosexuality. Why are you having so much trouble understanding it? 

I stand with religious freedom to 'do' whatever it is a church wishes to do if it passes state and federal laws. So get that straight once and for all.

What I have been trying to get you to tacitly accept is that once you step across your religious threshold, theocracy 'mode' ends; not for you personally but you enter the 'kingdom of this world' —where others exist, move, and have their being.

The Church has limited 'standing' in the world on worldly matters.

Except I am not dealing with the world. None of my comments to you involves them. It involves you and what you claim to be the gospel. 

That is where our differences in viewpoint manifest. You are evidently trying to tell everybody to live out your biblical concepts be they believer or unbeliever.

Nope again. TiG doesn't believe. Apparently you think I'm trying to make him submit to my views. Why not ask him his opinion on this? 

I am reminding you that you have no authority to expect unbelievers to do anything spiritual.

I'll try to keep that in mind if I ever try to do so. 

Of course, at that point, in every discussion you 'run to attack me' and condemn what you know not-for surely you can not know my heart.

Well, just can't make you happy. Complain if I ignore you, complain if I don't. 

And it is my heart that God sees even as he see your very own!

Got something right. Congrats. 

Moving on!

Good idea. I don't think there's anything to be gained by continuing. Back to ignoring you. But, honestly, I do hope for the best for you. 

I take "explained away" to mean we don't interpret it the way you do.

I noted 'uncomfortable' things in the Bible such as the support and lack of condemnation of slavery.   This is uncomfortable because it is profoundly inconsistent for a God of love to hold slavery moral.    When there is no good explanation for such inconsistencies (and for contradictions) apologetics finds way to "explain it away".

Therefore, of the different interpretations expressed among the 100, those that differ from what the author intended is most likely explained by poor reading comprehension or personal desire for that interpretation.

We can ask J.K. Rowling for the true interpretation.   With the Bible, one can at best merely believe they have the 'true interpretation'.    Logically, with the Bible, all we have are myriad interpretations whose holders think theirs is 'true'.

What you mean is that He never made a specific command concerning slavery as being an abomination. 

No I mean that God has never deemed slavery immoral and, in fact, when speaking of slavery God acknowledged humans as property that can be bought/sold and passed to offspring via inheritance.

That is SO not the overarching context of the NT. It isn't even in the ballpark

I disagree with your disagreement.   Love thy neighbor is fundamental to Jesus' teachings and it involves loving God (I was not excluding that).   You disagree with quite a few believers.

Oh, man : ) There is no difference between God in the OT and Jesus in the NT. God in the OT was just as kind and gentle as Jesus is perceived to be, somewhat incorrectly. For some reason, people misunderstand John 12:47...

I have yet to see where Jesus encouraged supporters to kill their enemies but to feel free to take the virgin girls for themselves.  Hard to imagine Jesus wiping out all life on the planet spare a few or condemning all progeny for all time for disobeying or confusing natural language of people to keep them from growing arrogant with their progress, etc. etc.

... to mean that Jesus isn't going to Judge us. 

I made no mention of this.   The notion of judging is profoundly different from the examples I just listed above.

The only difference is you believe your morals are superior, a strange position to take, given your belief that morality is subjective and not objective. 

No, I do not believe that Leviticus is the word of the supreme entity but rather words of ordinary men.   Leviticus is subjective morality of ancient Hebrew men.   Given that, I do indeed believe they were morally wrong in this regard.    My point is that extraordinary examples like this are evidence that these are not the mores of the grandest possible being but, as one would expect, the mores of ancient men.  In other words, Leviticus, etc. is evidence that the Bible is not divine.

I neither understood the Bible any better than you do nor did I know God personally.

I do not find yours to be a great understanding of the Bible but rather a great understanding of a particular interpretation of the Bible.   And I find your interpretation to be flawed.   For example, your interpretation that any word connoting God's surprise, anger, disappointment, etc. does not have its standard meaning.   Your interpretation removes all meaning from those words and, in so doing, fundamentally changes the meaning of the text.   

In general, I have always found it odd why you et. al. are so tied to the Bible.   There are so many obvious lines of evidence suggesting the Bible is merely the work of ancient men sans any divine guidance.   The Bible requires so much work just to hold it together and even then the stretches one must make in interpretation defy credulity.

Why is it that those who believe that there must be something more —a sentient entity who created all— cannot be content with that as their belief?   Why go beyond that with speculation of specifics?   Why buy into the words of other human beings (ancient and modern) which profess certain knowledge about what would be the grandest possible entity?    Take comfort in the belief that there is a purpose and that our existence is not necessarily arbitrary.    There are plenty of good reasons to view the world's holy books with all of their internal inconsistences/contradictions and their collective disagreement with each other as simply the products of men trying to imagine the truth of the creator.

Within the context of this conversation, it is the truth. That is, this conversation we are having is about you, not them. 

I am perplexed as to how you are qualified to have a "deep" conversation about me. Please explain yourself if possible!

It is not my job to force God on people.

Well you can't prove it by your public policy positions! You seem double-minded and inconsistent in regards to your 'statement' above. It is not enough just to 'speak' leaving others to come to God at their 'appointed time' you have to get out of the business of political policy making that abuses others in order to perversely benefit the Gospel.

That is, if God truly desired to force men to believe-it would be easy to do with the proverbial, "wave of a hand" and into being the thing becomes.

I was telling people who fornicate that Jesus loves them in spite of that and that he died so we can have liberty? More, that all those nasty conservative Christian haters are just trying to enslave you under their rules? You're okay. Just keep doing what you're doing and have faith that Jesus will get to you in time. 

And there it is! Evidence you have misread me all along! Your 'assessment' is in error about me.

What you do not "get" so far is I am not telling unbelievers any such thing about God or the Bible. That is, I don't worry myself silly about what people do. Because it amounts to nothing. Not even here, it, worry amounts to nothing! 

What I share with unbelievers is what the Bible 'says' and leave it up to the unbeliever and God to deal with as I dealt with it myself as a church 'boy' who saw necessity to leave the church world and go out into the 'world'. With hopes that if God wanted me to be something different than I was- "God would provide."

God saw fit to not let me die apart from this faith I am in today. I still 'marvel' over it at times.

God 'delivered' me. It is evidence, and commonsense, that God can deliver any other person God chooses. Fact is, it is scriptural. For how can God's plan for salvation ever fail? If God is God it can not fail. Thus, we have no need to worry or wring our hands over who/what/when/where/how another individual comes to God.

Our role is to be loving, caring, and peaceful to others including persons outside our belief system, so that by seeing our example of Christ-likeness and most importantly our love for God that accepts them as people -without hypocrisy, we don't become the issue - as some 'twist themselves into spiritual and unspiritual 'pretzels' making inconsistent assertions fand 'arguments' to which holes can be poked and ultimately people simply don't want to be. . . US.  Because of the nonsense some Christians espouse.

My position: Give people space to come ASK about what it is I believe, example, and am in Jesus Christ. Let them come to see the light of God in me as an individual and just maybe God will use my 'light to draw somebody closer to the spirit. You can not do that if you are saying and acting inconsistent, chaotic, or erratic.

Perhaps he/she was just following your example here of regularly inferring you have more knowledge of people than you could possibly have.

The difference between some people here and me is I am willing to write and inform others about my beliefs-especially if properly and deeply questioned. In case of "many" here they are content to just throw/name-call/pull 'pony-tails,' mock, and/or piss on others while they skim the surface of discussion. Nobody 'grows' from that kind of 'trading,' but if the intention is to spread chaos then 'they' are partially successful.

For example, I find it curious after all this time Sparty On, you do not know that Drakkonis' pronouns are "he/him."

Blame yourself for what the others hear. I practically begged you to do this in private but you refused. Even when I reminded you that Christians should not air their laundry in front of non-believers. Personally, I think you thought you could accomplish... something, I don't know what, that you wanted everyone to see. I just took it as one more piece of evidence that you don't actually follow Christ. At least, not the way he tells us to. 

So much for you in your attempts to figure out what motivates others! It may explain why you have such jaundiced discussions with me.

Drakk', I am not ashamed of the Gospel and certainly not intimidated by anybody here, with all due respect to each and everybody reading this.

As for Christian 'dirty' laundry, well it is 'curb-side' when libertarians like you preach to others ignore their drives, ambitions, and plans for their 'worldly' lives and co-opt your strict conservative plans for themselves. You abruptly and dismissively brush their comments aside like so much trash and are peeved when they push-back!

So much so that you will offer "sweet" platitudes, dismissive remarks, occasionally poorly thought out biblical references, and attack the commenter when s/he questions some incompleteness, or being left 'wanting.'

I can say this, because you continually 'round the corner ahead of me-when I get to the end of the block-there you standing waiting to figuratively club me over the head' instead of us moving on and getting through some of our differences together like two grown-ups!

So yes, I am fully aware of what Paul wrote about Christians not arguing in public; but, that does not grant you license to write whatever you will in public (where I can read it) and expect that I should let it go over when I know differently—or better.

Finally, perhaps Paul would think better of the 'policy' if he had written during the age of world-wide internet connection!

Not rejecting the world, even though Christ clearly tells us to, is practically the same as not denying yourself. When the Bible speaks of the world, it's talking about the man-made systems we have created apart from God out of the selfish desires of our heart. Denying oneself for Christ's sake means denying that part of us that wants to be a part of that system, even if we don't participate in it. Basically, denying everything about ourselves and, instead, focusing on the new life we receive from God when we accept Christ's salvation. 

You mean like this place where you question if I am a believer and default to talking to atheists and unbelievers for 'hours on end'? This is you 'denying yourself? Rhetorical. No further comment.

I don’t find it curious at all.

Rejecting the world doesn't mean we pretend it isn't there, though. Obviously, it is. Nor does it mean the mistreatment of those still in the world, unless you consider being truthful about what God says as mistreatment. Nothing I can do about that if you do. What we are supposed to be doing as believers is using every opportunity, whether pleasant or unpleasant, to become more like Christ. Meaning, to do what he does, with the motives he does, for the purpose he does. That's really important, CB. It isn't to figure out how to fit our own wants and desires into that image. It means discarding all of that and replacing it with everything Jesus is. Jesus wasn't cruel or uncompassionate to the sinners he hung out with but he didn't hesitate to tell them they needed to repent or face eternal destruction. You can try to do it your way but it won't work. Throughout the Bible, God makes it clear there is only His way. 

As I have often stated, you can tell people anything you wish-just allow them the space to accept or reject it. God allows acceptance or rejection, no?

However, going around 'boxing people in" with religious politics and policies is beyond the scope of the church, because the principle of 'do unto others as you do unto yourselves' explicitly means you would not like for any other political groups to box in your religious expression/s. You and I can tell people what each of us perceives as what "the lord loves" without oppressing them through policy prescriptions that many Christians, were it to be properly known, are not able to follow through on perpetually.

I tell people here and in the real world, 'what thus saith the Lord' (as I see it), and then I move on trusting God to be God if and when their 'appointed time' is to be. It is all my role is in another's live. And I have prove of it too: God 'let' me go until such time as I 'returned.'

Like you, I went my own way for many years before events made me realize I either needed to stop believing or take it seriously. So, basically the same story as you. 

I am pretty sure we "went our own way" with notable differences, me being classified in society as a minority and for most of my youth/active years: "A legal deviant."

So you will have to understand why I won't abandon my past 'friends' and associates to the attacks from conservatives who think that once they become saved they are to badger, bully, harass, obfuscate, freely lie if for some 'righteous' cause, to get people to leave their present states of existence.

My approach is to use the space God allots them to come to Jesus -if come at all. Jesus has told many parables about saving people at varying times and phases of their lives—in tragedies or in joys.

The question I see for you at the end of the day is this: All those platitudes you share about God being faithful, loyal, mighty, sure, 'and able to save to the utmost' do you believe what you 'say'? Because I do and so I do what I can to help all people in the virtual world to see my humanity and also to see my peace and consistency in confession of my faith. It is not an either or with me and God understands it.

For I believe God can not fail and so I put live my life as though it is so accordingly!

I take "explained away" to mean we don't interpret it the way you do.

I noted 'uncomfortable' things in the Bible such as the support and lack of condemnation of slavery.   This is uncomfortable because it is profoundly inconsistent for a God of love to hold slavery moral.    When there is no good explanation for such inconsistencies (and for contradictions) apologetics finds way to "explain it away".

Yes, this is a good example. It's a little difficult to try to have a meaningful conversation with someone who keeps speaking as if there is agreement about that person's view on the subject. For instance, you think that what you have said here is true and that I recognize it as true. It consistently escapes you, or you are deliberately ignoring the fact, that I do not agree with your statement. 

Personally, I find your interpretation of the subject shallow. Mostly because it is devoid of any context and is really just based on an absolutist ideal. Slavery is bad and there is no possible context in which a good and loving God would allow it. Basically, the 'problem of evil' argument in a different form. A good, moral and all-powerful God would not allow evil to exist. Problem is, it doesn't address the possibility that a good, moral and all-powerful God may have a good, moral reason for allowing it to exist and therefore cannot be said to be true. 

It is the same with your treatment of slavery. 

I have yet to see where Jesus encouraged supporters to kill their enemies but to feel free to take the virgin girls for themselves.  Hard to imagine Jesus wiping out all life on the planet spare a few or condemning all progeny for all time for disobeying or confusing natural language of people to keep them from growing arrogant with their progress, etc. etc.

Yes, I understood the point the first time, in spite of your misleading interpretation. You apparently didn't understand the reply or are ignoring it.

The only difference is you believe your morals are superior, a strange position to take, given your belief that morality is subjective and not objective. 

No, I do not believe that Leviticus is the word of the supreme entity but rather words of ordinary men.   Leviticus is subjective morality of ancient Hebrew men.   Given that, I do indeed believe they were morally wrong in this regard.    My point is that extraordinary examples like this are evidence that these are not the mores of the grandest possible being but, as one would expect, the mores of ancient men.  In other words, Leviticus, etc. is evidence that the Bible is not divine.

I don't think you've thought this through. Even in what you claim here you're still stuck with the same problem. If morality is subjective, what basis would you have for claiming these men, or what you believe was merely their thoughts, were immoral? You still have no basis for the claim since your position doesn't allow one. The best you can do is put your view down as opinion rather than an objective truth. 

Why is it that those who believe that there must be something more —a sentient entity who created all— cannot be content withthatas their belief?   Why go beyond that with speculation of specifics?   Why buy into the words of other human beings (ancient and modern) which profess certain knowledge about what would be the grandest possible entity?    Take comfort in the belief that there is a purpose and that our existence is not necessarily arbitrary.    There are plenty of good reasons to view the world's holy books with all of their internal inconsistences/contradictions and their collective disagreement with each other as simply the products of men trying to imagine the truth of the creator.

Okay. What evidence can you give that this view is correct? If the Bible were simply the writings of flawed and primitive people concerning their ideas about our existence why should I consider yours to be less flawed and more applicable to how I should spend my life? What makes your subjective view better than their subjective view? 

Okay. Here's mine. I hate the phrase, "I brought x people to Christ," because, like you, I believe God calls people to Him. I don't bring them. However, He doesn't do it unaided. He uses His servants in helping those He calls to find Him. Not because He needs to, but because that is how He chooses to work. Through us, like He has always intended and always has. 

I can accept that viewpoint. As Paul puts it, when someone asks "what is the hope I have in me" I, CB, see it as an opening to tell that person unashamedly about Jesus! And so I do. Then I walk on leaving him/her to ponder or carry my words (planted) in their heart for some one else to 'water' and God to give the increase. Later when I see him.her and it is stated that my words, views, attitude was 'impactful' to their decision-making about this or that- I am grateful and to their face and in the presence of 'all' I give God the glory for this great (small) thing I have done in the life of someone else.

Paul exampled being Paul who went in and out amongst all sorts of people, in order to save some (not all) he encountered. He did this by sharing what he had in his good mannerism-without condemning, judging, or abusing 'the world' for Christ sake.

If you think this you seriously need to reread Paul. 

I think you miss my point. Of course, Paul wrote in his letters arguments for spiritual discipline, but he sat in the presence of all sorts of people to 'bring some to Christ' -sure he did not become a hypocrite to do all manners of things he disapproved of, but he did not sit around pointing fingers, looking down his nose, or 'classifying' people such that they were not worth his time, so to speak. That is what I mean by the quote.

You're afraid of not being seen as nice. To follow Christ, you need to get over that.

You're mistaken. Generally speaking, I have long thought and think at this very moment you don't like what you know of me. And still I persist in coming and going in full 'sight' of you. This is not about being nice with me. It is precisely about this-my motto:

Romans 12: 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.

I will leave it up to you to reason the contrast between Jesus's "offense" and Paul's "peace" - it may be you will have to reconciled the two viewpoints (as I have done).

I don't have to be liked, but I don't have to be an offense either. I can allow people space to be themselves, really, in my presence. Trusting that God will do the rest of it - unto and including the saving on God's timetable. As God once did me.

In doing it that way, I free myself from worrying needlessly about what I can do 'right,' or wrong in the lives of others. It frees me up to do the best I can understanding my own shortcomings in life, while being right with others, in hopes that the will trust God because of what they see/feel/emanating and radiating from me.

I know what your views are because you espouse them all the time and I listen. I pay attention to what you say. Are you unaware that you're constantly talking about them, especially when I'm ignoring you? Do you think I don't read what you say because I don't respond? 

Is that rhetorical questioning? In any case: No comment.

Slavery is bad and there is no possible context in which a good and loving God would allow it.

That is an inaccurate read.   It is easy to see how a good and loving God might allow slavery as the economic system for the time.   He might allow slavery because of what He perceived as the greater good for all of humanity.   The problem is the fact that there is no indication from this God that owning another human being as property is immoral.   Following your evil argument, one might state that a good and loving God would have a reason to NEVER IN ALL TIME even indicate that owning another human being is immoral.   If that is all one would offer, I would find that to be tortured apologetics.

You apparently didn't understand the reply or are ignoring it.

Or you did not actually address my point.   Explain how you could take only the NT (as if the OT did not exist) and extrapolate from the teachings of Jesus that He would simply wipe out all living things and start over or that Jesus would ever suggest the invasion of an enemy with virgin girls to be taken as the spoils.   Hard to imagine anyone seeing that from Jesus.

If morality is subjective, what basis would you have for claiming these men, or what you believe was merely their thoughts, were immoral? You still have no basis for the claim since your position doesn't allow one. The best you can do is put your view down as opinion rather than an objective truth. 

They are immoral per my subjective morality.   That is something I should not need to spell out to you given our many discussions on this.   There is no evidence of objective morality so all morality we ever see is, in effect, subjective.    Now with that reestablished:

My point was that the morality of the Bible correlates with the mores & values in place in society during the long period in which the Bible was written.   It is no stretch to suggest that the morality of ancient authors were expressed when they wrote words that spoke as God.   In contrast, what would be remarkable is for these ancient men to show the wisdom of a greater being which contradicted their rather primitive mores & values.   

Slavery, as the prime example, is something that most every modern society on the planet understands to be immoral.   If the ancient writers had deemed the practice of slavery immoral they would be bucking pretty much all they ever knew (and accepted as the norm) and would be countering the economic forces (wielded by kings, emperors and lords) of the times.   They did not.   They wrote as one would expect them to write.  (They would likely have been executed if they had tried to push slavery as immoral.)

You will likely argue that we modern people may not be correct that slavery is immoral and that God holds slavery to be moral (the big picture reasoning) and thus the slavery of the Bible IS INDEED from God's objective morality.   It would be a very weak argument but you could offer it.   If you choose instead to hold that God views slavery as immoral then why is it that God has never once communicated this?   

All signs point to the obvious conclusion that  ancient men were not instructed / enlightened by a supreme entity that slavery is immoral.   They almost certainly did not think it was since it was part of the economic system they had always known; it was normal to them — as normal as capitalism is to us.   Thus the Bible is written as one would expect from ancient authors on their own — inclusive of the immoral practices of the time because they had no arbiter of objective morality to guide them.

If the Bible were simply the writings of flawed and primitive people concerning their ideas about our existence why should I consider yours to be less flawed and more applicable to how I should spend my life? What makes your subjective view better than their subjective view? 

What did I recommend other than to follow the evidence?   If it comforts someone to believe in a creator then I have suggested that they stick with what can be known.   Turns out, we do not know anything about our creator (assuming we have a sentient creator).    We have, in contrast, all sorts of stories that are all over the map, are internally inconsistent and inconsistent with each other (contradicting even).   Religions want people to accept their stories ... just accept what these human beings say is true.  How any can be considered credible goes to the ability of the human mind to believe that which is comforting and/or deemed true by a trusted authority (that includes parents, teachers, etc. during the indoctrination years).

Human being do not like "we do not know".   I get that.   Unfortunately, the choice is between "we do not know" and picking one of countless thousands of incompatible beliefs as the 'true belief'.  And to do that one must find a way to work around all the natural flaws of the belief system to make it appear divine and not, during this process, be disillusioned by the extreme apologetics required in this process.    

Logically, if we start with "something greater must exist", our best chance of pursuing truth is to try to understand that which the hypothesized creator created.   Buying stories invented by human beings is easy but almost certainly a path to fantasy rather than truth.

IMO.

Thank you for sharing something about your past strugggles and ordeals with us. For demonstrating regarding our mutual humanity!

I have no idea what you are talking about. The situation is explained already and this is not a, "I win-you lose" area that I am going to devote myself to. If you are satisfied with your explanation now . . .let's move on. Thank you! (My eyes glazed over reading that comment, just so you know.)

But, honestly, I do hope for the best for you

You simply can't help yourself. Drakk', I forgive you. And I wish only God's best for you and me.

FYI, I will be posting an article you might be, might be, interested in by day's 'end.'  Of course, your interest and degree of involvement will be your own.

Why not?! Please elaborate.

IMO.

You know... I think I'll just leave it at that. Thanks for the conversation, TiG. See you next time. 

Likewise, Drakk.  Bis später.

That’s one way to spread the joy and love.

They love everyone but they are inverted.

Ode to Maverick .....

I wonder how many of the unborn have ended up in her digestive tract.

She and her brother can fall off the face of the earth for all I care.

I am sick of these religious people thinking they are better than everyone else.

I don't see her network doing very good long term. I don't think U-verse even carries the channel.

They're both such phonier than thou hypocrites.  Can't stand either of them.  He's a whackjob and she's a phony bitch.  

You all are sinners and going to hell, but I love you....

I want to tell people like that to shove their bullshit up their asses, yet they would have to take the stick out first.

I don't love her.  What a bitch.

Maybe she can show her brothers failed movies on her soon to be failed channel.

Exactly, let the market place decide.

She can FUCK OFF

She is wrong. But, that's okay. We just need her to know that she is wrong for trying to alien or segregate homosexuals who have been abused and stigmatized enough because of Christian beliefs and some of its 'cherished' attitudes.

Apparently Candace isn't 'woke' enough for the ultra-liberals here.

So, there is now a whole network making smarmy stright to TV B-movies for the fundies offended by racy programming on The Hallmark Channel?

Enjoy!

B movies is being generous....

What are Hallmark Channel movies? They are lucky to qualify as B-movies.

Cookie cutter plot lines- just change actor/actresses; move sets/locations; and shoot to matching harmony.

Don't go off script whatever you do. Originality is not a trademark of Hallmark.

That is the point...

Point or pointless?

it's a bigger market than showing thumper movies in church basements...

Don’t piss off the queens Candace .....Lordy, Lordy don’t piss off the queens

Why do people care what entertainment media folks?  I only care if they are entertaining or not.  I don’t look to them for life guidance.

Well then ...... what the hell is wrong with you?