Anyone who reads any of the verses mentioning homosexual behavior and believes that God isn't opposed to it is an idiot.
McBurney By the Numbers
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
gcthomas
New member
The question I asked was whether it is good to revile groups of people, as well as those people who chose to tolerate them, on the basis of this disapproval. All sorts of behaviours are disapproved of in the bible, but the greatest vileness is reserved for homosexuals and associated politicians.
So, Lighthouse, do you approve of the vilification of a law-abiding group of people, for the simple reason that they interpret the bible differently to you? The bible does encourage tolerance, doesn't it?
:doh:
The answer to your question is found in my "slogan/motto" underneath my avatar: "Most Christians worship the false god of Public Acceptance."
gcthomas
New member
Thanks.
Is that why the Republicans lost the presidential election again? The majority of the public had had enough of the bible-justified bigotry and think that a tolerant and supportive society is more Christian? :guitar:
Yes. The "radical right-winger" Ronald Reagan won in a landslide.
But today's Republican party worships the false god of what they believe to be Public Acceptance as portrayed by the national liberal media. Before most Republicans speak in public, they first ask themselves, "Would Jon Stewart make fun of me for saying this?"
But do Democrats ask themselves, "Would Rush Limbaugh make fun of me for saying this?" Absolutely not.
Republicans cower in trembling fear before their lords and masters in the national liberal media. If they had Reagan's attitude toward the media, they would win landslides again.
- It appears we revile them more than other things because other people accept them. We actually revile child molesters more, for instance, but as most other people also revile them they don't notice our repulsion at such things.
- The Bible does not teach tolerance, anywhere. Even David, a man after God's own heart, hated those who hated God [Psalm 139:19-22].
- Just because something is legal according to the law of the land doesn't mean it is right. There are many things that have been, or are, legal in this country that are immoral, unethical, unrighteous, abhorrent, aberrant, etc.
gcthomas
New member
1. Possibly true.
2. An interesting Psalm choice for your argument, which is an appeal to God to search his heart for wickedness to to lead him back onto the right path:
"23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
Try me, and know my anxieties;
24 And see if there is any wicked way in me,
And lead me in the way everlasting."
On leaving sinners alone:
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; Psalm 1:1-6
On tolerating the Samaritans:
And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him. But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” But he turned and rebuked them. And they went on to another village. Luke 9:52-56
On judging others:
Judge not, that you be not judged. Matthew 7:1
On reviling others:
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. Peter 3:8-11
On generally how to treat other people:
But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.. 1 Peter 3:15
Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body. Proverbs 16:24
3. Agreed, but irrelevant: More appropriate is the other way around:
Not everything that is immoral according to one section of the population can or should be made illegal. If you wish to use the civil law to enforce religious doctrine on an unwilling group then you will never succeed in a pluralist democracy and you will progressively marginalise your church, so that its good works will diminish.
2. An interesting Psalm choice for your argument, which is an appeal to God to search his heart for wickedness to to lead him back onto the right path:
"23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
Try me, and know my anxieties;
24 And see if there is any wicked way in me,
And lead me in the way everlasting."
On leaving sinners alone:
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; Psalm 1:1-6
On tolerating the Samaritans:
And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him. But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” But he turned and rebuked them. And they went on to another village. Luke 9:52-56
On judging others:
Judge not, that you be not judged. Matthew 7:1
On reviling others:
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. Peter 3:8-11
On generally how to treat other people:
But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.. 1 Peter 3:15
Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body. Proverbs 16:24
3. Agreed, but irrelevant: More appropriate is the other way around:
Not everything that is immoral according to one section of the population can or should be made illegal. If you wish to use the civil law to enforce religious doctrine on an unwilling group then you will never succeed in a pluralist democracy and you will progressively marginalise your church, so that its good works will diminish.
Last edited:
Do you think this negates his hatred of those who hate God?
What about God's hatred of all workers of iniquity: Psalm 5:4-6?
That has nothing to do with leaving them alone; it's about not being like them.
You're reading into that.
This is what Jesus said regarding those who will not receive the gospel:
Also He said to them, [Jesus]“In whatever place you enter a house, stay there till you depart from that place. And whoever will not receive you nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet as a testimony against them. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!”[/Jesus]
-Mark 6:13-11
:doh:
Why am I not surprised?
[Jesus]“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”[/Jesus]
-Matthew 7:1-5
If you pay attention, and don't take things out of context, you can clearly see that Jesus is talking to hypocrites, and telling them not to judge because they are hypocrites [and warning others not to judge hypocritically]. He finishes this particular message with the advice to remove the "planks" from our own "eyes" and then we can remove the "speck" from out brother's "eye," i.e. we can judge.
Also see: [Jesus]“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”[/Jesus]
-John 7:24
A clear command to judge.
Or how about the fact that we will judge them on Judgment Day?
Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?
-1 Corinthians 6:2-3
Now you're assuming the two are mutually exclusive.
I don't simply revile sinners because they revile me, or because they revile God, but because the love of God burns in me for them and it hurts me to see them reject His love for them; because I know He wants for them what is best, things that are good: peace, love, joy, etc. Just as it would disgust and pain me to see a friend live in squalor and filth and as a junkie and/or alcoholic. I want better for them and I hate them for not wanting the same for themselves, for not having enough respect for themselves to seek, pursue, and accept the better, more joyful path.
No, how to treat others is: [Jesus]“Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”[/Jesus]
-Matthew 7:12
And yet sometimes rebuke is required.
You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him.
-Leviticus 19:17
Open rebuke is better
Than love carefully concealed.
-Proverbs 27:5
[Jesus]“Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.”[/Jesus]
-Luke 17:3
Morality is not relative.:nono:
And what makes you think I support democracy?
gcthomas
New member
Thanks, Lighthouse, for the thoughtful and detailed reply, even if we disagree.
On your last comment about democracy, don't forget your history. America was founded substantially by religious minorities fleeing persecution in Europe, looking for a place where the disparate groups could rub along in peace. Abandoning democracy would mean one group gets to dominate the others, and there will be no guarantee that your group would be in charge!
On your last comment about democracy, don't forget your history. America was founded substantially by religious minorities fleeing persecution in Europe, looking for a place where the disparate groups could rub along in peace. Abandoning democracy would mean one group gets to dominate the others, and there will be no guarantee that your group would be in charge!
gcthomas
New member
Yes, often, but most often with the OT. The NT is better, but it is often worded unclearly (I'm sure much has been left out), so I feel it is better to read it as figuratively, rather than literally, true.
I believe it is a great resource for developing social morality, and it was useful for it to be adhered to literally when societies were less developed. But now, we can reason it out for ourselves: people can be good with or without the bible. (And people can be immoral, whether or not they are adhering to their interpretation of the bible.)
Sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning. It is so easy to misinterpret the written word.
:kookoo:Yes, often, but most often with the OT. The NT is better, but it is often worded unclearly (I'm sure much has been left out), so I feel it is better to read it as figuratively, rather than literally, true.
We cannot reason it out for ourselves :nono:; we need God. It's the whole reason He gave us His word.
And how do you define good? Do you think people can be righteous without God?
You didn't misinterpret anything, you assumed.
But just to clear things up, I believe it is easier to change the heart and mind of one person than those of a nation.
gcthomas
New member
We can reason it out for ourselves, it's the whole reason we have, erm, reason!
Righteous is a theological term, so it is defined in relation to a god's judgement of behaviour, so it doesn't apply to the non-religious.
But, I do think people can behave 'right' without god, as many people do (there is usually an accepted 'best' way to behave in most social circumstances, described by tradition or calculated on a 'least harm to others' basis.
Having a religious motive does not make you necessarily good, while having non-religious reason for behaving well doesn't make you evil. Most people are good, with or without a judgmental god watching them to make sure.
Agreed. Hidden assumptions are behind most interpretations, including mine.
You're right there! Nations, and any large group with common interests and a unity of purpose, can have a mob mentality and the majority are unaffected by reason. At least some people are amenable to reasoned arguments when separated from the mob.
You really think we can reason out a God much greater than we?
Righteous has absolutely nothing to do with behavior.:nono:
Of course people can behave without God. That's not the issue.
And we are clearly poor judges of what brings the least harm to others. Not to mention all those people who just don't want to behave.
No argument there.
I don't buy that.
I also don't see any reason to believe God is watching us to make sure we behave.
So you're a monarchist, then?
gcthomas
New member
Morality does not need a god to spell it out. We can, and usually do, work it out ourselves.
Some are, some aren't. Religion doesn't seem to change the equation much.
Huh? How does that follow?
Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it.
And this has nothing to do with religion, but rather the Creator of all, who knows all and sees all [that He cares to] and is therefore the best judge [as He knows it for a certainty] what is the best for everyone.
You believe we'd be better served by a single ruler whose heart and mind can be changed much easier than to be ruled by a "mob," such as we have in most "democracies."
I put that final word in quotations because I am referring to all who have elements of democracy and therefore vote on laws and leaders, yet may not be a complete democracy [the US, for instance, is a Constitutional Republic].
gcthomas
New member
If a creator exists, we are still reliant on the interpretation of a book written, edited and translated by people. This is not the same as knowing the word of god, unfiltered.
Democracies only function by having an executive leader, or a parliament with a leader. Having no leader, and so being ruled by the ad hoc negotiations of a mob, would be anarchy (from the greek ἀν, "without" + ἀρχός, "leader"). So I prefer democracies led by leaders. There ARE no functioning democracies with executive functions or law making carried out by the population as a whole. (I'd not that you inferred a preference from a statement of fact - you should not assume that I favour things that I observe)
Why would a constitutional republic not be a 'full' democracy? the 'cracy' part of democracy comes from greek 'kratos', meaning power: in the case of the US, the people's ('demos') power to remove a poorly performing president or representative. This IS full democracy.
('Mob rule' is what you have in rural parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia.)
Last edited:
We can rely on that very same Creator to lead us into truth, especially when men have erred in translating, or interpreting, His word; most of all when we have as we are not very good at knowing spiritual things of our own accord.
Elected leaders are elected by the mob, so...
How many things do we vote on? Was there a vote when Roe v Wade was decided? How about prohibition? The emancipation proclamation?
Now, one of these things was the right thing to do but the populace didn't vote on any of them, afaik. So not a full on democracy.