Posted on 06/22/2006 2:42:57 AM PDT by beaversmom
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
.
Guess she never read Romans.
Too true. Now people like this author sacrifice not oxen but unborn children. Molech rules! Kewel.!
Of course, this lady is clueless. Like so many liberals she doesn't know that even if there weren't the Pauline writings against homosexual behavior, there would still be millenia of exigesis and interpretation distinguishing ceremonial law from moral law.
But that would invovle actually studying the matter instead of making a living publishing material that would go better in a freshman all night bull session at an undistinguished college.
I was bemused to have my younger borther explianing to me that in his church the "myth" had been abandoned and that the pure teaching of Jesus was what they focussed on. Evidently it escaped his attention that from, say, 35 AD on Who Jesus was and what He Did was considered far more important that what He said. We're just so blessed to have people 1800 years after the event to explain to us that up until they came along nobody else really understood it properly.
To try to educate this woman - the condemnation of homosexuality is also in the book of Romans, which is New Testament.
Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
To put an even finer point on it, the book of 1 Corinthians spell this out:
4) 1 Cor. 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Just in case she missed it, here it is again in the book of Timothy (again, New Testament):
1 Tim. 1:9-10 - "We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts (perverts is the word for Homosexual offenders), for slave traders and liars and perjurersand for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine"
Moreover, God and Jesus are One. That is Christianity 101. The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New. To say that Christ was some offshoot from God who never "taught" about forbidding homosexuality is supreme ignorance. This woman should read about what Christ taught about sin - all sin, of which homosexuality is sin.
Alas - this is a common straw dog that the left repeats time and time again.
They don't accept Christ, but they like to try to stand behind Him if they think they can manipulate Him.
This woman is ignorant of Christianity.
Were she speaking to a Jewish audience about not eating shrimp, then her words about following the OT dietary laws would make sense.
Those laws, however, were SPECIFICALLY voided by Divine decision for Christians. This is found in the book of Acts, a central text detailing early Church history. It was affirmed by the Council of Jerusalem. The letters of St Paul are chock full of discussion of it in one form or another.
The only way to be ignorant of Acts is if one is totally ignorant of Christianity.
What a typical liberal dingbat! The kind that in the aftermath of a particularily hideous murder will intone,
"I think we should hear his side of the matter before we make up our minds."
I've gone blind...I can't read what you've written...help!!!
I'm totally disgusted with this nonsense.......
This editorial epitomizes EVERYTHING that is wrong with the liberal way of looking at things. To liberals, nothing is about facts or reality. Everything is about gender, sexual preference, and race. Everything.
It's a social club, not a church.
She should join fast its going to need her as real Christians drop out.
Supermarket religion. Pick your own beliefs based on what YOU think it should be. "I'll have two pounds of equality and four ounces of freedom please. What's that? Sacrifice? Condemnation of wrong-doing? Ooh I dont know about that...Yes I'll take the 'Thou shalt not murder' but can I have an abortion proviso with that?"
This is what happens when you elevate selected aspects of Christianity above all others.
And the fact that conservative Christians occasionally do the same thing with other teachings in no way justifies it.
Everyone of them I've been too is a social club. A place to be "seen" and show off your wealth. A place where those who actually work in church programs are so often obsessed that everyone notice them and not their work.
I decided they can have their clubs and cafeteria church doctrine. God and I get along just fine without all the organised theatrics.
Isn't that the point? The people who would want to join are the people who would never actually want to participate in a real church.
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.