Re: the Bible, translation and gays

In article <2VwNj.3242$ob2.635@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, B says...

>On Apr 13, 5:29=A0pm, rtdav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

>> So where do you decide what is to be ignored as culturally irrelevant
>> and what is not?

>B - I believe it is up to each of us to use our inner God to decide
>what is truth and relevant and what is not.

Well, you may indeed believe this, but that does _not_ make it a
_Christian_ belief. Nor does it make it an appropriate topic for this
NG.

>> The Bible clearly condemns homo***uality.  That does not make it
>> correct to "bash" gays... unless gays interpret having
>> homo***uality labeled as sin being bashed. Certainly there is no
>> justification for trying to harm them. Gays are not really being
>> singled out in the bible; homo***uality is just one of many
>> different deviant sinful behaviors that we as humans reflect all
>> the time.  However, it is foolish to claim the bible doesn't
>> condemn it.

>B - whether it does or does not...isn't adherence to God first and
>Bible maybe far down the line matter more than idolizing a book and
>seeing it as not to be questioned?

This is a "false dilemma". You have no excuse for pretending that
these are the only two options.

>The Bible is not God..

I suppose I should no longer be surprised that you keep coming back to
this "straw-man argument".

>the Bible is a book of books written by people who did not meet Jesus
>the Christ in the flesh but had taken oral teachings of what he might
>have said...these same books were reinterpreted over and over.

Where _does_ this myth keep coming from? And again: I suppose I should
no longer be surprised that you keep coming back to this myth. But
what is most disappointing about _this_ myth is that you are not only
denying one form of inspiration, you are effectively denying any
possible form of inspiration of the Scriptures. But to reject
inspiration so radically puts you in open conflict with not just the
entire Christian Tradition, but even the Jewish Tradition.

Many in this NG know better than to do this. What a pity you never
have learned from their examples.

>Whether one believes it is Gods word inerrant or not is up to each of
>us.

Only in the same sense that it is up to each of us to either accept
salvation or choose death.

>> That said, one of the reasons the modern church sets homo***uals
>> apart is their insistence it is not a sin. That is what is perhaps
>> most galling and why it gets so much attention. The bible is clear
>> that all sin and fall short of the glory of God.

>B - perhaps then the Modern church has some work to do.

You have missed the point. It is you who has the work to do.

>Perhaps the modern church has to decide whether the Bible should be
>taken inerrant or not ...and consider themselves Idolists who put the
>Bible above God.

No, that is certainly not the course of action the modern church must
take. On the contrary: that course must be avoided at all costs!

>> And if I am homo***ual, then I am wrong.

>B - I allow God to decide over a "thing".

So you love to say, but no, you do not. On the contrary: you
repeatedly and clearly reject God's Word.

>> Make no mistake, it doesn't matter if you were born this way or
>> have these feelings naturally. The bible is also clear that we are
>> born into sin. We are sinners by nature. That however doesn't make
>> it ok in Gods eyes. That's why we are in need of a savior, because
>> we are lost in sin. Homo***uality is simply another sin that is
>> evil in Gods eyes.  But trying to use the bible to say it is not is
>> to simply ignore what it says.

>B - again..you are making the Book a god..and to me this is idolatry.

Again, you are wrong. By no means is this "making the Book a god".

> You've effectively ignored the bible as the word of God and called
> him a liar.

>B - rubbish.

No, it is not 'rubbish'. You really have done these things.

>To ignore or deny some of the Bible has nothing to do
>with calling God a liar.

But why should anyone take _your_ word over his? I won't. You
shouldn't either.
 
>God is not the Bible and never will be...again that is idolatry.

But neither rtdavid nor anyone else in this thead is comitting this
idolatry. This is your straw-man again.

>> The same would be true of a murderer who refused to see his
>> murdering as sin.

>B - everyone believes that murder is a sin.

Really? Whoever gave Prime Minister Yuschenko dioxin did not believe
it was a sin. Whoever gave Litvinenko polonium-210 didn't believe it
either. On the contrary: they probably believed it was a patriotic
act.

>....only SOME people believe that homo***uality is a sin.

Just as only SOME people believe murder is a sin.

>In that schism lies the truth.

It is not a 'schism'. Lookup this word.

>Think on that. God being within tells us what is wrong and
>right...even the most heinous of criminals knows that murder is
>wrong.

Wrong in so many ways! 1) you have told him to think on 'that', when
'that' isn't even true, 2) you have confused conscience with God 3) I
gave you two examples of people who believe murder is right, at least
in special cases.

>One can never be apart from God..because God is not "over there" and
>outside or ourselves.

Wrong. Sin separates from God.

>To me this is the first thing that got us
>sinning...

No. It was pride that did this, the same pride you express so
tragically in your pantheism.

>a belief in separation..a belief that all God is limited and cannot
>be within us or that God can pull itself out of God.

>God is all....everything is God...and God is also transcendant
>beyond.  It is a Koan...think on it.

>In my opinion only, B.

What good does it do, Bren, to state so confidently, "It is a Koan",
confidently commanding others to "think on it", and then say "In my
opinion only"?

Make up your mind. You will find this easier to do, of course, if you
let go of the childish and uneducated solipsism you keep on returning
to.


-- 
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)