For the Bible Tells Me So Heresy
Again it appears we have the heresy of persons trying to use Scripture to promote as acceptable, that which is clearly stated in Scripture as an unnatural, unseemly, reprobate sin in the sight of the Almighty Lord God of Heaven and Earth.
Interestingly the film title of For the Bible Tells Me So has little to do with honesty on the part of the writers and promoters, for the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin. There is no doubt concerning this matter, for even Atheists (which deny there is a God or that Scripture should be used today) freely admit that the Scriptures and God are against homosexuality. To deny the teaching of Scripture against homosexuality is completely dishonest from anyone who would claim such.
The questions presented by the film are thus:
“Can the love between two people ever be an abomination? Is the chasm separating gays and lesbians and Christianity too wide to cross? Is the Bible an excuse to hate?”
The film’s proclaim is as follows:
“Winner of the Audience Award for Best Documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival, Dan Karslake's provocative, entertaining documentary brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture, and in the process reveals that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible. As the film notes, most Christians live their lives today without feeling obliged to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath or eats shrimp (as a literal reading of scripture dictates).”
The “documentary brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture, and in the process reveals that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible.” This is such a foolish claim; it goes beyond reason and simple reading comprehension.
Romans 1 states:
“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
People, if one wishes to do as they please, do so, but to invoke the name of God or the Scriptures deceitfully to try and bring credibility or authority to your sinful, immoral actions is simply foolish.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Interestingly the film title of For the Bible Tells Me So has little to do with honesty on the part of the writers and promoters, for the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin. There is no doubt concerning this matter, for even Atheists (which deny there is a God or that Scripture should be used today) freely admit that the Scriptures and God are against homosexuality. To deny the teaching of Scripture against homosexuality is completely dishonest from anyone who would claim such.
The questions presented by the film are thus:
“Can the love between two people ever be an abomination? Is the chasm separating gays and lesbians and Christianity too wide to cross? Is the Bible an excuse to hate?”
The film’s proclaim is as follows:
“Winner of the Audience Award for Best Documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival, Dan Karslake's provocative, entertaining documentary brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture, and in the process reveals that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible. As the film notes, most Christians live their lives today without feeling obliged to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath or eats shrimp (as a literal reading of scripture dictates).”
The “documentary brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture, and in the process reveals that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible.” This is such a foolish claim; it goes beyond reason and simple reading comprehension.
Romans 1 states:
“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
People, if one wishes to do as they please, do so, but to invoke the name of God or the Scriptures deceitfully to try and bring credibility or authority to your sinful, immoral actions is simply foolish.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
15 comments:
According to the bible:
Working on the sabbath, including picking sticks, is a crime punishable by death.
If your child is disobedient, the punishment is death by stoning. Same goes to the adulterer.
Gays are to be put to death.
Women with menses are unclean.
Which law do you want to enforce??? So you are going to give the "oh the OT laws don't count." Ok, but you still have to kill the gays. Now that is NT.
Are you sure you want to be a good christian and carry out the decorum as preached??? Or are you going to chicken out and join us atheists in rubbishing such barbaric nonsense?
Beast
"Ok, but you still have to kill the gays. Now that is NT."
Please give me a NT verse which claims we are to "kill the gays," and don't try to slide by using the verse which claims they "deserve death."
So are you saying you agree or diagree with the film's ideals?
Tim
Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Romans: 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
"Worthy of Death". No sliding, Tim. Gays deserve to die. Someone must enforce them. How about you, Tim?
Of course, there is always the OT Leviticus verse to back it up. Different language (shall be put to death) but still death nonetheless. You can argue till you are blue in the face.....but death is still death!
As for the firm, my stand is the same as the one I had with the da Vinci code: The more you Christians scream bloody murder about anti-religious films, the happier I am because you morons are just generating sales for these movies.
Besides, us atheists never got into murdering Gods in the first place.The Jews outdid us by two thousand years, and the Catholic Church practiced cannibalism and vampirism on Jebus for more than a millennial.
We atheists simply don't get a piece of the action,even if we wanted to.I explained that in my blog.
Beast
Okay Beast,
Just a couple of notes, for we have already been down this road too many times to keep rehashing the same argument.
By your statement "Gays deserve to die" I assume that you agree with me that the film writers, producers, and whoever are being dishonest to say that Scripture does not declare homosexuality a sin.
As for your choice of NT Scripture references, I knew very well what verses you would quote, which is why I wrote "don't try to slide by using the verse which claims they "deserve death."" And if you will reread Romans 1, you will see it covers more than just homosexuals.
Scripture declares: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." [Romans 6:23]
Every sin is worthy of death, yet it is not every man's duty to God to execute judgment upon a sinner. The government's job is to judge and punish all evil doers. [Romans 13]
With the resurrection of Jesus Christ came mercy and grace, whereby us sinners worthy of death could receive forgiveness of sin and eternal life.
I don't know what you consider to be "Different language", but "worthy of death" is not synonymous with "shall surely be put to death."
There are many "worthy of death" in our jails today, but not all will "surely put be put to death."
Tim
Ok Tim
Sure we have been done this road many times, because you simply keep regurgitating the same mistakes I point out every time (I keep a record of all my victories, so you cannot run away.)
1. Sure, Romans cover more than just homosexuals. But that is beside the point.
The point of contention here is: Why are gays "worthy of death"? Of course, you can argue that it is not the same as "shall be put to death", which ironically is what Leviticus prescribes(Oh jeez, I am hearing the throngs of "oh the OT doesn't apply" excuse), but the thing is, a fundamentalist hell bent on homophobia won't be picking bones about this verse. "Worthy of Death" is an invitation to kill. Simple as that.
You quote Romans Chapter 6 & 13, but both verses can simply be construed to refer to the "sin debt", in which the "murder" would have been done to the Jebus, which I mentioned on my blog: God murder prescribed to cure mankind of the "Sin Debt". While homophobia and the sin issue looks like one and the same in this case, a fundamentalist of the osama nature is not going to care: He has both the NT and the OT to back him up, regardless of whatever you think that the OT is no longer relevant.
The idea that someone is "worthy of death" sounds a bit draconian by any standards, while "shall be put to death" speaks of certain death. While the latter may not be conferred death, nonetheless, the very mention of "death" spells a certainty that a perceived crime should receive due punishment, and is essentially no better than a death sentence hung over the head.
Beast
If you ask me, the bible is extraordinarily homophobic: Both in the NT & OT, the scripture wants to put gays to the sword. Whether it is deserving death or shall be put to death, death is the only recourse to homosexuality.
Do also note that death is a very common prescription dispensed by the bible. If one is to read the smut in the bible for too long, one becomes desensitized by this ancient nonsense.
Beast
Beast,
"Whether it is deserving death or shall be put to death, death is the only recourse to homosexuality."
Death IS NOT "the only recourse to homosexuality," for there is forgiveness found in repentence of sin and putting faith in Christ for salvation.
"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live" - Ezekiel 33:11
Tim
Lol. Didn't you say OT isn't applicable? Why are you quoting the OT? Another case of pix and nix?
Since you quote the OT, I shall quote in kind:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus Chapter 20:13
Beast
Beast,
"Why are you quoting the OT?"
To show even in the OT there was forgivness with God, if one would turn from their sin to God.
Tim
Tim
You are just picking the verses that show the bible in a good light, and ignoring those that put the bible in a bad light.
Considering that this kind of nonsense is coming from a preacher like you, I don't expect anything more than this kind of ignorance. You have proven me right about not choosing a life of priesthood: I simply do not have the heart to lie to others about the holy babble.
Beast
We must observe the Scriptures as a whole, not simply drawing from the OT law to the Jews.
A lie is any variance from the truth.
Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
To deny Christ is to deny truth.
Tim
Again, you only read the good parts:
1. Jebus and his Gay Follower?
And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
Mark 14:51-52
2 Jebus, Gay?
John
13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved
13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
If you want to embrace Jebus, then you need to embrace the fact that Jebus did have gay tendencies.
Dig that, Tim
Beast
"A lie is any variance from the truth."
You have probably just described your own actions:
First you say the OT doesn't count because of the old covenant issue. Fine.
Then you quoted from the OT.
Can you or can you not quote the OT? Or do you just quote the ones that you think are nice, and throw away the ones that are not?
Beast
Beast,
My final reply to your obvious claims simply used to try to rile me up.
1. Even you must realize that someone following someone, regardless of their attire does not mean the one being followed nor the follower is a homosexual by what they wear in and of itself.
2. Even you must realize that love is something which men share with men, women share with women, and parents share with children which does not require a heterosexual or homosexual relationship. Thus, affections such as those you list may or may not accompany sexual relationships.
3. I never claimed “the OT doesn't count because of the old covenant,” I simply acknowledge the Levitical law (which is what you keep quoting) was to the Jews for their government. Further acknowledging that we must take the Scriptures (the progressive revelation of God) as a whole, and not simply stay in Leviticus laws when there is mercy and grace for the sinner found in Christ throughout the NT.
Tim
Tim
Men just don't lie on men's bosoms, Tim. There's something fishy about Jebus, and if he wasn't gay, then he was inviting accusations of being one: That was probably why the young man was chasing him naked! Surely, a son of God would know better than tempt a young man with his long hair and loving eyes? Doh!
"I simply acknowledge the Levitical law (which is what you keep quoting) was to the Jews for their government. "
This is what you refer to: The old covenant.
Quite often in the past, you ask for NT quotes to give examples of godly cruelty, and don't you dare deny it: You said that OT is no longer applicable. No kidding. You want me to drag my old records for you to read?
Question: Which verse does it mention that Leviticus laws were "meant for the Jews only"? Is it just something that you interpret from your pix and nix game?
I didn't keep harping on Leviticus laws, Tim. I also use other erroneous verses to prove that the bible is erroneous.
Again, no substantial arguments from you.
Post a Comment