Posted on 07/10/2011 11:16:37 PM PDT by Cronos
He's not a perfect example of what happens when you read the Word for yourself.So yes,nonsense.
I see your point. The man’s original interpretation was correct. I don’t necessarily agree original interpretations are always correct, but I think your point is valid. If someone is struggling and feeling convicted by certain verses, then they would do well to heed them. Scripture specifically warns about people who tell believers whatever they want to hear in order to mislead them.
With eternal damnation at stake, I’ll take my chances with a more restrictive interpretation, like on the ordination of women. Christ set the standard when he chose only male apostles. Maybe female pastors are OK, but I’d rather side with Paul even if he was only speaking his personal opinion. At worse, I’ll be proven mistaken in Heaven.
God does not call us to accept sin but to help sinners repent.
Accepting sodomites that have not repented would seem to be condoning their sin
I like the convenience of using a credit card. Convenience trumps everything - including paying those pesky bills...
Yeah, love your neighbor. If your neighbor is a drunkard, do not urge him to change his ways. Go buy him a case of scotch. Take him out for a drink a couple times a week. Love, love, love. All you need is love. Except love is not encouraging people in their self-destructive ways.
It wasn’t that long ago that all the Christian churches preached against abortion. Now a lot of them have gay ministers and even say gay activity is OK. What abomination is next? Pedophilia? Demonic sacrifices?
That's just it isn't it? With eternal damnation at stake I'll take my chances with what my God-given conscience tells me God is meaning when I read His Word.Wether I'm doing that as honestly as I can is between God and I.His Word is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of my own heart,a heart which I do not fully know.
I've had little to no religious upbringing,my entire extended family are atheists.I began to read the Bible for myself and came to believe through that reading.
I just don't get this 'don't read it and try to understand it for yourself' thing.It's painfull seeing every whacko doctrine being pinned on the 'YOIPOS' crowd.The fact is,most folks believe whatever they want,or even moreso,what they hear the most ("faith cometh by hearing" seems to apply pretty much across the board)and will as time goes by,justify what they believe.
It's the carnal mind,this body of death,that wants nothing personal to do with anyone or anything that can discern it,know it and reveal it. The Word is a discerner of the heart,you read it and it reads you.To be honest,the slightest hint of anything wanting to put some sort of buffer between a man's heart and the "two egded sword" has a sinister element to it.So it seems to me.
Then again..."At worse, I’ll be proven mistaken in Heaven."
Hope you take this post right FRiend.I'm only trying to put across how I'm seeing it.
grace and peace to you.
you’re posting links to virus sites.. folks’ computers will get infected. Don’t spread the viruses..
Actually, mitch — according to his account, he reached his conclusions that the Bible was a-ok with homosexuality all on his lonesome. he didn’t ask anyone else or take heed that for 2000 years Christians had taught the exact opposite... he used his personal interpretation to arrive at error
Reading comprehension FAIL.
Reconciliation does not mean 'do whatever you like.'
No Cronos,someone elses interpretation helped him along his way.His original own personal interpretation caused him to grapple "with Bible verses that he had always understood to condemn homosexuality"
"...he reached his conclusions that the Bible was a-ok with homosexuality all on his lonesome"
So the..."biblical scholars disputed the meaning of those passages"...is irrelevent then?
From my #27..."It's the carnal mind,this body of death,that wants nothing personal to do with anyone or anything that can discern it,know it and reveal it. The Word is a discerner of the heart,you read it and it reads you.To be honest,the slightest hint of anything wanting to put some sort of buffer between a man's heart and the "two egded sword" has a sinister element to it.So it seems to me."
So what I have said above is wrong to your mind?
--- > he had always understood, namely this is what he had always been taught as we and every other Chrsitian for 2000 years has been taught
This Presbyterian pastor rejected what had been Christian beliefs for 2 millenia in favor of his own conclusions
"biblical scholars disputed the meaning of those passages". --> they disputed, but nowhere does it say that they said it for pro-gay. He reached those conclusions himself, rejecting Christian teaching.
is correct -- people use their own interpretations to jump to any religious conclusions they want, as in this gay pastor's case
Please don’t think I’m against reading and interpreting the Bible for oneself. Everyone should read the Bible for themselves and compare it to what they’ve heard or been taught. That’s a must!
On the other hand, there are probably nearly as many Bible interpretations as there are people, and a lot of folks clearly have misconceptions. Many Protestant denominations don’t require or expect much in the way of scholarship from their members, but there is a wealth of early church teachings that shouldn’t be disregarded. Some of the early church leaders were disciples of the apostles, so they were able to discuss and learn exactly what Christ taught the apostles.
One would never come up with nonsense like homosexual sin being spiritually OK if one studied the Bible and rounded it out with other early church writings. Like I wrote, there are a lot of writings from people who were far more closely connected to Christ, and they adamantly believed adultery, fornication, and homosexuality were evil. There’s simply no evidence that unrepentant homosexuality would have been tolerated.
I was brought up as a Protestant. There are some things I don’t like about the Catholic Church, but I also admire it in many ways.
I think that people have forgotten that sometimes we demonstrate love by gently (or not-so-gently) correcting the behavior of those who have gone astray.
The article says he grappled with Bible verses.Do you think people have to be taught what those verses condemning homosexuality mean? Are those scriptures not plain enough?
His own interpretation was fine,it was his exceptance of them that was wrong.I think he plain read them and didn't like them.Maybe the so-called bible scholars weren't out and out pro-gay (if you can swallow that)but they were enough of a "yea,hath God said?" for him to willingly doubt what was plainly written.
Will you answer my question re the excerpt from #27?
I agree. There’s a reason why Christians have had certain beliefs for thousands of years, and anyone who has a new revelation is highly suspect IMHO. I would test everything against scripture as well as its historical interpretation. The Bible is the ultimate measure by which we test all doctrine, but it can be difficult. That’s where the early church’s teachings can be helpful.
He then put his own interpretation on this, undoing 2000 years of teaching and replacing the interpretation we've all believed in for centuries with his own interpretation
Do you think people have to be taught what those verses condemning homosexuality mean? Are those scriptures not plain enough? ---> Evidently not for him. We read this, we are taught this and this is what we have always believed and taught and been taught
However, this Presbtyerian pastor used his own interpretation to say "gay=good"
His own interpretation was fine --> his own interpretation was He concluded that the term "homosexuality" didn't exist in the biblical languages
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.