Posted on 12/20/2019 7:06:52 PM PST by marshmallow
Regards,
“first time I heard it was about thirty or so years ago.”
Wow. It’s a first for me. It’s truly insane. But I guess if a man’s goal is to rationalize raping little boys, it does make sense on one level.
“The Pope is infallible.”
What? No /s/ tag?
“This pope isn’t producing good fruit”
But I figure this pope IS a good fruit — a fruit, anyway.
You’re right; I’ve heard that nonsense before - years ago.
I also have heard people say Jesus didn’t drink wine, or change water into wine; they belong to Christian denominations (both black and white) that forbid drinking, and when I ask about how Jesus viewed wine, they tell me it was some kind of fruit juice. Seriously.
Every year (usually around Easter) you can see nonsensical programs on TV that offer alternative theories to Old and New Testament passages. One regarding the Great Flood showed land giving way (releasing the Black Sea?), which caused a flood that locals assumed “covered the Earth”. The Pharaoh’s men pursuing the Jewish people were overwhelmed by high tides. When they get to the New Testament, it is all about discrediting Jesus as the Son of God/erasing His divinity.
The worst part of it is that these are presented as facts, and people will repeat them as such.
Indeed , by the grace of God.
Indeed. And look at the parallel account in Judges 19 .
It gets worse: the prohomosexual apologists expand an inordinate amount of effects seeking to negate the Scriptural condemnation of homosexual relations and even to find sanction for the same. Which, among other fallacies, requires them to typically employ a hermeneutic that would negate any basic moral laws. Thus,
Author Robin Scroggs states, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”(Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.) William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. John Boswell stated, regarding the Bible, that "one must first relinquish the concept of a single book containing a uniform corpus of writings accepted as morally authoritative." (John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980), 92) John Barton states that the Bible is "a big baggy compendium of a book, full of variety and inconsistency, sometimes mistaken on matters of fact and theology alike." (John Barton, "The Place of the Bible in Moral Debate," Theology 88 (May 1985), 206) Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, termed it "dangerous" to fail to condemn the apostle Paul's condemnation of homosexual relations, and advocated removing such from the canon. (Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43. http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid7) Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman contends, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . .. bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.” (Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988) Christine E. Gudorf flatly denies that the Bible is the primary authority for Christian ethics. (Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121) Bishop (Ret.) John Shelby Spong denies all miracles, including the virgin conception and literal bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the Divine inspiration of Scripture, and denies that there are any moral absolutes (Michael Bott and Jonathan Sarfati, "What’s Wrong With (Former) Bishop Spong?") and relegates the clear condemnation of homosexual relations in Romans 1 to being the product of the apostle Paul's “ill-informed, culturally biased prejudices.” (Spong, Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality, 149-52)
Another among the minority of pro homosexuals who affirm that the Bible does condemn homosexual relations while seeking to reject such is Walter Wink, who states "I have long insisted that the issue is one of hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." And that "Paul wouldn't accept a loving homosexual relationship for a minute." However, he joins similar revisionists who disallow that the Bible offers a coherent sexual morality ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”. Instead, he joins others in asserting that people possess a right to sex that can supercede Biblical laws, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (Walter Wink, "To hell with gays" and "the Bible and homosexuality") Daniel Helminiak's theory of ethics is similar, which Olliff and Hodges notes "is, at its very foundation, self-refuting. While he professes Christianity, he has adopted the autonomous man's position for the basis of his ethics." A Further Look at Pro-Homosexual Theology, Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges
Refuted , by the grace of God.
And RC scholarship likewise abounds with such, as in the notes in the NAB study Bible exposed here , relegating literal OT historical accounts - which the NT treats as so - to being "fables and "folk tales." Including (as seen the Vatican's NAB bible footnote) the account of the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites in Gn. [19:30–38] :
This Israelite tale about the origin of Israel’s neighbors east of the Jordan and the Dead Sea was told partly to ridicule these ethnically related but rival nations and partly to give popular etymologies for their names. The stylized nature of the story is seen in the names of the daughters (“the firstborn” and “the younger”), the ease with which they fool their father, and the identical descriptions of the encounters.
Don't see how this can be said in light of the authority behind it.
From the article:
*****
The new volume, titled What Is Man? An Itinerary of Biblical Anthropology (Che cosa è l’uomo? Un itinerario di antropologia biblica), was released on December 16 by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) and endeavors to examine the scriptural understanding of the human person. Jesuit Father Pietro Bovati, secretary for the Pontifical Biblical Commission, said the work was carried out at the express wish of Pope Francis.
*****
The body which today is known as the Pontifical Biblical Commission was constituted by Leo XIII with the apostolic Letter Vigilantiae studiique of 30th October 1902 (cfr. ASS 35 [1902-1903], 234-238). The Holy Father assigned a threefold task to the new institution: a) to promote biblical study effectively among Catholics; b) to counteract erroneous opinions regarding Sacred Scripture by scientific means, and c) to study and illuminate debated questions and emerging problems in the biblical field.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_14071997_pcbible_en.html
*****
I call upon Roman Catholics to reject this false denomination and turn to Christianity. This will be difficult for many who have been raised in Roman Catholicism.....but eternity is at stake. This is no time to let pride get in the way of your eternal destination.
Sure; “catholic” scholars have been trying (even before Vatican II) to soften the messages of both the Old and New Testaments; they ignore Christ’s references to Sodom & Gomorrah, and they particularly ignore His ending statements: “Go now, and sin no more”.
They’ve erased the concept of “sin” itself.
Revelation 22:18-19 ~ (NKJV) (18)For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; (19)and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
This warning applies to all of God's Word...these warnings are against altering the biblical text (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Jer. 26:2). Anyone who tampers with the truth by attempting to falsify, mitigate, alter or misinterpret it will suffer the judgments described in these 2 verses.
God has a place prepared for him.
12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. (Jude)
So they are going to try the out of context ploy of the Queers?
Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
true
and how can New Testament passages be ‘explained’ ?
Call it what ya’ like, but the result was them same.
Ayn Rand — ‘We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.’
I suppose it could happen. What kind of bar were you in? ;o)
The anus is inhospitable to a penis, so I guess indirectly you could make that reach.
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.