The New Queen James Bible.

The passages in the Bible that clobber gays, the Clobber Versus’, are presented in the new Queen James Bible as they were intended to be understood.  That is, scripture did not condemn gay marriage.

From what I have read, homosexuality was practiced during the time of the Biblical writer, Paul.  If Paul thought homosexuality was an out and out sin, there was language available which would have made that point clearly.  Instead, he used more obscure language.

The growing acceptance of gay marriage and homosexuality means one of two things within the sphere of religion.  One is people believe the Bible condemns any gay relationships but don’t care what the Bible says on the issue. The other is people don’t really believe the Bible condemns homosexuality.

When I was active in the national gay rights advocacy group, Parents and Friends of Lesians and Gays (PFLAG), several of my colleagues were ministers.  They pondered about how to reach a broader audience that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

Locally, there are a handful of ministers who give seminars on interpretations of the Bible that rule out condemnation.  All over the country such efforts go on.

I’m not sure at the end of the day these well meaning and serious efforts will make the difference needed to derail antiquated and, as it seems to me, incorrect interpretations of the Bible.  What will work better is humorous ridicule.

That’s what is coming with the new Queen James Bible.

Join the lively discussion on FaceBook, Red River Freethinkers.

88 Responses

  1. Henry

    Jon: “If Paul thought homosexuality was an out and out sin, there was language available which would have made that point clearly.”

    He used language that was very clear.

        1. Dustin White

          I read Ancient Greek (koine Greek specifically, which is the language Paul used). The language isn’t clear. That is why one can find dozens of translations for the terms being used. Also, the fact that sexual orientation wasn’t really known poses a problem as well as some translations are tryin to force language on Paul that simply was not available to him.

          There is a reason why there are thousands of pieces of work dealing with these passages. The language is not clear.

          1. Henry

            Dusty: “Also, the fact that sexual orientation wasn’t really known poses a problem as well as some translations are tryin to force language on Paul that simply was not available to him.”

            Dusty, what you are saying is at odds with what Jon said, “there was language available which would have made that point clearly.”

            Go argue with Jon.

            Meanwhile, I’ll rely on the work of long-respected scholars. This homo movement in sanitizing/erasing their sin with creative interpretation of scripture is pretty young with some very young “scholars”. I’d rather rely on someone who has works 500 years old that have been picked apart (tried), and yet, their works still stand.

          2. Henry 3:15 “I’d rather rely on someone who has works 500 years old that have been picked apart (tried), and yet, their works still stand.”

            Henry, finally, we agree on something. King James 1611 would be your 500 years old reference that stands after all kinds of attacks. It’s interpretation of the word, “aresenokoitais”, in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 is “abusers of themselves with mankind.” Later Bibles, introducing the politics of the times, changed this to homosexuality.

          3. Henry

            Clarification: There was a homo movement back in NT times. I am unaware of the scriptures being re-interpreted then.

          4. Henry 4:58 “Jon, to say the KJ 1611 defends homosexuality is silly”

            No, Henry. What is silly, what should be ridiculed and made fun, of is the notion the Bible condemns homosexual couples from living together as productive and honorable members of society. The references used in the Bible to condemn are not referring to homosexual couples at all, but other cultural practices of that day. For example, the practice of humiliating a defeated enemy by ritualized same sex rape.

            Mac is so correct. The Bible is used by people to justify their predjusdices. If the Bible were not available, the same predjudices would go on, justified some other way.

          5. Dustin White

            Henry- What I stated doesn’t disagree with Jon. There was language available that could have made that point. In Plato’s symposium, we see a wonderful story that does so quite well.

            However, at the same time, the idea of sexual orientation really wasn’t known. The term homosexuality wouldn’t even be created for centuries. It is not just simply a cut and dry issue.

            And if you want to talk about long respected scholars (I find it funny that you aren’t willing to name any though), I will be happy to do that. John Boswell is a very respected scholar, who wrote works that stood the test of time. Robin Scroggs, another long respected scholar has produced work on the subject that has stood the test of time. Both of these individuals have actually taken many of the historical arguments against homosexuality, and show why they fail.

            But I would be interested to hear what your sources are that are 500 years old. I can tell you right now they don’t use the term homosexual or homosexuality, and their view on sexual orientation simply holds no ground, as those areas really only saw a surge within the last century.

            To me, it seems that you’re just hiding behind your hate for others.

          6. Henry

            John Boswell and Robin Scroggs are youngin’s from this generation. They are a little wet behind the ears. They have as much theological weight as a hot air balloon.

            Some good scholars you may want to consider are St. Athanasius, St. Paul, Luther, and St. Augustine.

            Dusty: “To me, it seems that you’re just hiding behind your hate for others.”

            I think you have hate for the old order and anyone that stands with it who enjoys its ability to glorify the Lord.

            Now, go and argue with Jon.

          7. Henry

            Jon: “humiliating a defeated enemy by ritualized same sex rape”

            I am unaware of that language. I will have to make a closer study.

  2. Dustin White

    Another excellent article. This is a subject I have written somewhat extensively, and have read up on thoroughly. In the end, I feel people generally miss the point in Paul. All one has to do is read a few verses on, and see that Paul flips the whole situation around and tells those who are condemning these “sins” that they are in no place to do so as they are also guilty. Paul then continues with the idea that we can all be saved.

  3. It’s great to see such an informed and as always spirited discussion. I’d like to offer a much simpler explanation: if this very afternoon, it were PROVEN beyond any shadow of any doubt and all humans on earth were in agreement that the original Bible in fact says nothing about homosexuality; the number of people who would change their point of view would be relatively small.

    Humans use their holy books to justify treatment of people in a way they would not treat themselves. The Christian holy book is simply a tool for many of the ‘haters gotta hate’ types. It helps them convince otherwise civilized people their hatred is God mandated.

  4. Michael Ross

    “antiquated and, as it seems to me, incorrect interpretations of the Bible. ”

    The verses condemning the overt practice of homosexuality do not require interperatation.

    Why don’t you advocate for pedophelia since it is not directly condemned in the Bible as sodomy is?

    1. Dustin White

      The verses do need interpretation. The fact that they are written in a different language means certain points of interpretation are used.

      Also because the verses are not clear, and are referring to a different historical context, that means interpretation is needed. The fact that you and I can look at the same passage means that a certain amount of interpretation is being done.

      As for pedophilia, some interpretations of the passage in 1 Corinthians do in fact condemn such practices. However, it also has to be remembered that in the historical context in which the Bible was being written, it was common for an older man to marry someone and have children with someone we would still consider a child.

      1. Michael Ross

        “The verses do need interpretation.”

        OK they need interpretation, but God doesn’t condemn something as an “abomination” and prescribe the death penalty, then turn around and sanctify it. Justifying wicked behavior is also an abomination (Proverbs 17:15)

        1. Dustin White

          There is not dealth penalty accorded to homosexuality nor is it called an abomination. Male anal intercourse is called an abomination. Huge difference. Homosexuality is not defined by a single sexual act, that really, most don’t even participate in.

          And if you look at it in context, the act is only described in conjunction with rape and subjugating others (as well as shaming them).

          Also, Leviticus forbids eating pork and shellfish (as well as cheeseburgers). It forbids wearing clothes made of two different types of thread.

          The Old Testament in general also commands one to be circumcised, make animal sacrifices, forgive debts after a period of time, and so on and so forth. On the Sabbath one is not able to do any work either.

          So, if you want to pick one small verse, are you ready to follow the other ones? Or are you being hypocritical?

          1. Michael Ross

            “There is not death penalty accorded to homosexuality nor is it called an abomination.”

            Correct. Homosexuality itself is not a capital offence. Not a crime. It is sin. The overt practice of it, sodomy, is a crime for which stoning is the penalty. Even then, if it is kept private the consenting individuals are not to be punished. Sanctity of one’s home is another biblical mandate. God is not interested in a which hunt or a blood bath. He is interested in repentance. The capital punishment mandate is to keep these acts closeted to protect society from their influence.
            “Also, Leviticus forbids eating pork and shellfish (as well as cheeseburgers).”

            You know very well that God cleansed certain foods under the new covenant but the NT reaffirms the condemnation of sodomy.

            “So, if you want to pick one small verse, are you ready to follow the other ones? Or are you being hypocritical?”
            No, nor am I ready to throw the whole thing out, as you obviously are.

          2. Stanta

            Micheal, I can’t believe Dustin pulled the old Leviticus argument out. Especially the shellfish, even though he considers the Acts of the Apostles flawed.

          3. Dustin White

            I’m not the one who pulled out the Leviticus argument. If one is going to use Leviticus, then they should use the entire book. If they are going to reject everything else in Leviticus, they shouldn’t pick this one verse. You can’t have it both ways.

            And if one wants to talk about sodomy, then you have large problems as the definition of sodomy is extremely iffy and has included everything from masturbation to interracial sexual intercourse.

          4. Henry

            Santa: “I can’t believe “

            Stan, I agree with you. I would imagine you properly know how to rightly divide the Word of the Lord.

          5. Stanta

            Dustin “Also, Leviticus forbids eating pork and shellfish (as well as cheeseburgers). It forbids wearing clothes made of two different types of thread.”

            The first mention of Leviticus was yours.

          6. Wanna B Sure

            I had a good friend who was a Rabbi in Reform Judaism. He loved a ham and cheese sandwich when on the road. He called it veal. He escaped the holocaust by smuggling out of Germany to England. He died 20 yr. ago. I think of him often.

          7. Stanta

            You must be a mind reader then, abominations is use a whole LOT of times in the Bible. The first time it is mentioned by name it was by you.

          8. Dustin White

            Stanta- Are you joking? Because there is only one place in the Bible that calls homosexuality an abomination.

            Michael was talking about homosexuality, as in, that is the topic that we have been discussing. There is only one place that homosexuality is called an abomination, and prescribed the death penalty. So even though Michael did not state he was referring to Leviticus, anyone familiar with the Bible, or such arguments, would know that he is referring to Leviticus.

            I do not understand why you are being intellectually dishonest here.

    2. Michael 8:03 “The versus condemning the overt practice of homosexualit do not require interpretation.”

      But, Michael, they do require translation. Not only translation from their original languages, but what was actually meant by the words at the time they were written. For example, Paul used a greek word, “arsenokoitais”. The 1611 King James did not translate that into “homosexuality”. The 1611 translated this into “abusers of themselves with mankind”. For some reason, this became “homosexuality” in later Bibles. I dare say no one can be absolutely certain that phrase refers to two men having sex. However, I’m sure many want to interpret it that way.

      1. Michael Ross

        It says one thing and you apply your “interpretation” and poof, like magic it means just the opposite. No point in studying the Bible or anything else for that matter.

  5. Margaret Walsh

    Good discussion! Why stop in the 1600’s, go back to the original source, unfortunately alot of it is missing, misquoted (mis-interpreted unintentially And some intentionally) and added to after the fact. There can be no real “authenticity” claim until the primary scources are examined and held to the ‘scientific method.” One needs to read books authored by Dr Bart Erhmann of UNC Chapel Hill, especially ” The Misquoting of Jesus” . Erhmann is overwhelming qualified to speak/write of the early church and the documents and writing that supposedly supports the foundation of modern Christianity. He extensively examines Paul’s letters and the Gospels and his discovery’s are eye opening!

    1. Margaret 9:59 Thank you for the first time comment.

      I went to Bart Erhmann’s website and noted this quote from his most recent book about the use of forgery in early Christian documents, “Arguably the most distintive feature of the early Christian literature is the degree to which it it forged.”

      As you said, why stop in the 1600’s indeed.

    2. Henry

      Bart Errman is an agnostic historian, not a biblical scholar. I have seen an error of his, and I haven’t even followed him that closely. He has an agenda.

      1. Dustin White

        He is a respected Biblical scholar who, in his works for the public, basically just states what most scholars agree with. His works are usually from a mainstream view, one in which most scholars agree with.

        Usually people who criticize him really haven’t read him, or simply are not up to date on religious scholarship. However, if you are willing to point out where he is in error, I would be happy to discuss that more.

          1. Dustin White

            Henry, I have a suspicious feeling that all you really have are petty insults and intolerance that you can lash out with.

      2. Margaret Walsh

        Dr Bart Erhmann is the most prestigious early church/New Testament scholar in the western world. He speaks and reads early aramic, greek, hebrew, latin and 3 or 4 other languages….the languages of the new testament. He began life as a bible thumping evangelical christian, attended 2 years at one of their bible schools, traqnsferred to obtain his 4 yr and PhD at other universities. He totally changed his beliefs after his Professor read his convoluted, extensive defense of something in the Gospel of John and wrote on his paper “Perhaps John was just wrong.” Erhmann had never ever questioned the Bible before and was ‘thunderstruck.’

        He is a fascinating writer and directly applies strict logic and reason to his research. If he has committed an error he will be the first one to acknowledge it so lets hear it. Henry, what is or was his agenda?

  6. Michael Ross

    “The verses do need interpretation.”

    OK they need interpretation, but God doesn’t condemn something as an “abomination” and prescribe the death penalty, then turn around and sanctify it. Justifying wicked behavior is also an abomination (Proverbs 17:15)

  7. Stanta

    Thanks Henry, I did a bit of studying since the whole shellfish and wearing of linen and wool thing keeps popping up. My first opinion on Leveticus is that most of the dietary laws seem to be quite sensible, particularly in a time when germs, bacteria and parasites were unknown.

    The second was how affectively it separated the Jews from the pagans. Pagans wore mixed clothing ergo it was prohibited to Jews. Curcumsion made sure a Jew could hide his religion and thus had to be prepared to defend it.

    A favorite of those who attack the laws is the law which a son who raises his hand against his father shall be stoned. This and many of the laws regarding stoning were put in place at a time when prisons and jail were unknown. It was also a time when an action that damaged the integrity of the family or clan could spell the destruction of the clan. It was a time when blood guess and bandits existed. If someone broke one of the laws there was only two options, exile or death. Exile created another enemy, the only option was death.

    Stoning was done by the community to protect the community. It would have been just as easy to cut their throats, even easier. But by stoning all participated. And if the stoning was unjustified all were guilty.

    What has changed over the years so that these laws either no longer are strictly enforced on the Christian community? First off the vast majority are Gentiles and the conference of Jerusalem between Paul, Peter and James came to the conclusion that we are not bound by the laws of Leviticus. The second is God himself struck down the dietary laws.

    The many penalties of stoning disappeared as affective law enforcement outside the clan took hold. Most incedents if stoning in the New Testament were done under religious authority not for civil offenses. This doesn’t mean the rules changed, just the punishments. We still feel that murder, theft, and rape are wrong. And some of us do take actions such as adultery, fornication and others as detrimental to a peaceful society.

    So I will eat shellfish, wear cotton/polyester blends as much as I want. I will also not commit adultery, fornication outside of marriage, theft or murder since those are obvious threats to peace.

    Looked at from that perspective and from a historical view the Bible still makes a lot of sense in our day. That there are things we can learn from it seems to be lost on people who think it is old fashions and outdated. How many of today’s ills could be avoided by people voluntarily following the social laws, not concentrating on the penalties put forward in the Bible.

    The illigitamacy rate continues to clime, single mothers having to raise childeran with out the support of the fathers. Rampant drug use and the corresponding violence. All because we want to do what feels good now, without worrying about not just the penalty paid legally by the perpetrator but the damage done to society.

    Many of the young men in our jails and prisons have childeran. I seem to hit them the hardest when I ask them ” What effect are you going to have on them being in jail most of their youngest years? How do you plan on keeping them out of jails when they consider it normal?

    1. Dustin White

      So Gods law in fact does change? Then why hold so firmly on to the idea that homosexuality is wrong?

      Also, he Jerusalem conference only dealt with circumcision and later the dietary laws. It didn’t cover the other laws. However, Jesus does state clearly that his followers are to follow the law until the end of time.

      Honestly, you are just pickin and choosing what laws you want to follow. That’s fine to do, but at least admit it. Nowhere in the New Testament does it state that the old laws have passed away. Jesus states exactly the opposite.

      1. Wanna B Sure

        “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish , but to fulfill”. And all the things that represents. Old Covenant to New Covenant. Why do you stop at the end of; “Nowhere in the New Testament does it state that the old laws have passed away. Jesus states exactly the opposite”? Do you deny Jesus was the fulfillment of the “Law”? And the “New covenant in my blood”? And through faith in Him, the Law is fulfilled in us?

        1. Dustin White

          Exactly, Jesus did not come to abolish the law. Instead, he was going to fulfill the law, in the same sense that every Jew fulfill the law, as in by keeping them and practicing them every day.

          You can take verses out of context, and ignore what is being said, but it doesn’t actually make your argument stick. Jesus also states that his followers must follow the law, to the t, until the end of time. So either Jesus contradicts himself (as you are pretty much suggesting), or he is saying we must follow the law.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            My my, such arogance. There is no “out of context”. The point is that no one CAN “follow th law to the T”. Your “So either Jesus contradicts himseld (as you are pretty much suggesting), or he is saying we must follow the law”; reveals a total willful ignorance of what was said, the context of what was said, and why. I’m afraid this is something you are having difficulty in comprehending . You are planning to be a “minister”.

          2. Dustin White

            Wanna B Sure- There is out of context. That is a huge problem here. The picking and choosing of certain verses simply does not work. It shows no respect to the Bible, and only proves one thing; people are going to justify whatever they want because the Bible can be made to say anything at all.

            I’m not showing any ignorance of the context of what is being said. The Gospels were written by Jews. Matthew, in particular, was quite Jewish, and it is there that we see the strongest commands to follow the Law. Matthew 5 tells us that Jesus stated that he did not come to abolish the law. It states that not until the end of time, will a single letter of the law be set aside. He states: “Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

            The Pharisees were seen to be the most strict observers of the Law. Thus, Jesus is stating that one has to follow the Law even more than the Pharisees do. That is the context of the saying of Jesus.

            The context of the idea that Jesus fulfills the law makes it extremely clear that he is telling others to follow the law exactly. But even more, if you follow up on the next passages, he commands an extremism of following the Law.

            And yes, I’m planning to be a minister. However, instead of being a minister who condemns anyone who is different, or makes people feel worthless because of how they are born, I plan on teaching acceptance. As in, I plan on taking the sum of all the law, as Jesus states, the one should love their neighbors as themselves, and that one should even love their enemies.

          3. Wanna B Sure

            Dustin; I see now you introduce Matt 22:36-40. This is fine. No indication of it before! ! ! Even with this though; keeping the law without consideration of why and what Christ did vicariously in fulfillment of the Law, leaves nothing but a “religion” or “church” of works, and works only, and that gets us back to the Pharisees.

          4. Dustin White

            Wanna Be Sure- With Matthew, I only added the context. You can run around it all you want, but what Jesus is saying is quite clear. Now, it you can show me why my interpretation is wrong (and I would expect you to use the verses in question, or other sayings of Jesus, not Paul or others as that simply would show conflicting ideas within the early movement, and it is clear Paul did change the message of Jesus anyway at least on the topic of divorce) I will be happy to acknowledge my fault.

            As for what church. There are a number of progressive and open churches that would be available to me. What I am saying really is not that out there as I am really basing my views off of hose of various Bible Scholars, who, many of which, also happen to be ministers.

          5. Wanna B Sure

            Dustin; I see virtually no Christology in any of your posts. You can run around without it all you want, and I’m sure there are “progressive and open churches” out there that are just fine with that. That being said, those “churches,” and the “pastors” of those “churches” present not much more than well intended social workers, or various service organizations with their specific objectives.

          6. Wanna B Sure

            And following in the footsteps of the Pharasees. Forgetting or ignoring the source of that love, both to God and to neighbor, which is from The Christ.

          7. Wanna B Sure

            Dustin; What you will wind up is not a systematic theology, but a systematic legalism. Much like “The two who went up to the Temple to pray”. You may have heard the story. Luke 18;9-14.

          8. Dustin White

            Wanna B Sure- The reason you see no Christology in my posts is because I have seen no reason to discuss such. Don’t think you can get a handle of my theological stance based on a few posts on a pretty narrow field of topics. I’m not hear to preach nor get into in depth theological debates.

            I really see no reason to anyway, as the members who tend to object to what I say here never really deal with what I’m saying and instead want to criticize my life or get into personal details. Why would I then feel a need to lay out a systematic theology when it will just be ignored anyway? I mean, even now, this is all just side tracking from the actual issue I brought up.

            But again, you really have no idea what my theological ideas consist of and I see you are also, like others, distorting what I have said and are trying to pin that down as my beliefs when they aren’t. It just amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

          9. Dustin 7:35 “I see o reason to anyway, as the members who tend to object to what I say here never really deal with what I’m saying and instead want to criticize my life or get into personal details.”

            Great observation, Dustin. That is a most frequent pattern one observes here. When losing an argument, these critics’ favorite strategy is to attack the messenger. Happens a lot. I mean, what does the denomination your might affiliate with have to do with the arguments you have raised???

            Anyway, thanks for your patience and participation.

          10. Wanna B Sure

            Dustin; By your posts I’m not so sure even you know what your believe. Your thoughts are all over the place, and at times appear to be at odds. You claim that others distort what you say. Well that is a little disingenious , as you have done it yourself as evidenced by your 4:45., and later in your 12;38. You probably can’t see it because you are so wrapped up in your own thoughts, others are not important. To be a teacher/minister, you must first be a listener. Your youth gives you time to mellow out a little. If Christology was first and formost on your agenda, you couldn’t help revealing it one way or another. Again I see little of that. No Christology–no church. Only a clubhouse. I’m not saying the topics you center around are not important. They are however a distraction from what should be the most important for a minister, and Christians in general. Consider; —-“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to every one who believes, t0 the the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Romans 1:16-

          11. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; I did ask what kind of church he was going to START. That being said, who one affiliates with is a good indicator of where that person is at . I wouldn’t expect you to be hanging out at the Vatican, or the other way around. There is an element of truth in the saying; “You are who you associate with”. Those are all valid questions or concerns. The accusations of being too personal are of no substance. (An interesting attempt/method to guilt/intimidate your opposition into silence) They are more along the line of “You meanies, always picking on me,” and/or any disagreement with you (((IS))) personal. If that is the case, you (Dustin) better find a different line of work. If you want superficiality, don’t look under the rug.

          12. Wanna 2:17 While I have never studied academic theology, I have an impression of the field of Christiology. The impression is you and Dustin are of different generations on this field, he of the new, you of the old. To the old generation, the approach is/was, “We believe in the sacred Jesus. We have no doubts or skepticism about this. Our only task is to resolve differences among ourselves as to nuances of what was said and written. Our purpose is none but Christiology.”

            The new generation, which is in its early stages of entry into the field, is about a larger view of religion and Christianity’s place in it. Christiology is but one branch of those studying Christianity, no longer the only branch.

          13. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; As I said, No Christology, no Church. (Capital C.) What you and others propose is Christianity without Christ. That is the trend in some circles. There is a term for that. There is also a book entitled “Christless Christianity”. Your championing of a Christless Christianity is/would be your goal. This is understandable. Your support of Dustin in this regard is a strong indication of it. “New” is not better, only different. Any form of so called “New Christianity” is not new either. It has been around for centuries under various names, and isms.

          14. Wanna 4:43 “New is not better, on different.”

            That may well be, but the new is adopted to replace the old, for whatever reason. It seems to me there are believers who are not enarmored by Christiology. Just a different variety of believing.

          15. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; In fact the most dishonest deception of the faith is a systemic thin vineer of Christianity with no Christological content. As in alcoholism; “cunning baffeling, powerfull. Strongly subjective, emotional, and seductive. It emphasizes “man and his works”, and ignores The Christ, and the work already done for us. Not Christianity at all.

          16. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; “Just a different way of believing”. Right. Kind of like the difference between a wife or a whore.

          17. Dustin White

            Wanna B Sure- Are you ever going to address my critique of Matthew? I’m just curious.

            As for contradiction or being all over the place, can you actually give an example? From what I’m seeing here, and hearing from you and others is that simply, my posts are being read with a huge bias and many preconceived ideas.

            For instance, the two posts that you presented say pretty much the same thing. One just expands on the other.

            And again, there is a reason you don’t see any mention of Christology in my posts. We haven’t been discussing that aspect. And neither am I going to go into detail about my beliefs as I don’t feel a need to be critiqued by other Christians who believe their way is the only way, while insulting and belittling those who disagree.

            Christology isn’t the only thing there for a minister. And neither would I imagine to focus on just that. Yes, as a minister (and I have been a minister, and every once in a while, will still do a special service) I do have to listen. However, generally, people’s problems don’t revolve on ideas surrounding Christology. That is only one idea concerning Christianity.

            So you can go ahead and make baseless claims from ignorance, and pretend that you know what my beliefs are (and apparently better than I do), and that’s fine. That’s why I actually prefer the company of atheists, as they don’t generally try to tell me what I do and do not believe.

            However, if you want to get back to the actual subject, and away from me personally, I will be happy to do that. But I really have no more want to have to try to explain myself personally. If you want to continue lying, and making false claims, go ahead, but I won’t be responding to stuff like that. If you want to have a decent conversation, I’m here.

          18. Dustin White

            Jon- It has been a pleasure to participate here. The personal critiques that we see from certain individuals here though is a large reason why I tend to hang out with atheists. Coincidentally, a study a few years back also demonstrated that atheists were more well-informed about religion in general as well than most Christians.

          19. Wanna B Sure

            Dustin; I have said all that needs to be said on this subject, including Matthew. Anymore would be redundant. Anything you recieve has been recieved with an attitude of preconceived bias. I can see why you preffer the company of atheists, and humanists, as you have much more in common. Be carefull though, they will bite you back if you are not carefull, that is if you reveal a firmly held Christology. “Continue lying, false claims”? None made. Merely observations based on your statements. I think I said before that if you think anything is personal, you better look for a different line of work. I could care less where you have been, but I am a little concerned in the direction you appear to be going. You are young, and have room to grow.

      2. Stanta

        First off Dustin, this is from acts 15:20 “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” That was the only requirement for the gentiles concerning the Mosaic Laws beyond the Ten Commandments. Read the entire chapter for context. The pharisee withing the group were demanding the gentiles follow ALL the law, just as you are. Here, let me hold that mirror up.

        Jon, I said the laws which govern a peaceful society never changed. Murder, theft, rape, fornication and adultery. I said the PUNISHMENT has been modified as we moved from a family/clan society to our central government enforcement. At the time of the writing of the laws when someone threatened the survival of the family/clan, something had to be done with them. No jails or prisons in tents Jon, and Dustin for that matter.

        Stoning stopped because THEY HAD JAILS. Not because the laws changed. Some crimes will always be crimes. Crime is no longer handled in our society based on religion, although many of the crimes of old are still recognized there are some which Christians should follow even if they are no longer a secular offense.

        Just because secular law says you CAN, doesn’t mean you SHOULD. If Christians want to live within their community to a higher/different standard they should be left alone. I didn’t agree with how the Marriage Amendment was proposed, I have written a lot on civil unions for all, marriage by the church. I fell that gives the protection to ALL that the same sex marriage side wants but allows churches to follow their interior rules.

        1. Dustin White

          Stoning didn’t stop because they had jails. Wasn’t Stephen stoned to death, according to Acts? Yes he was, and at that same time, they also had jails. So your explanation simply doesn’t work.

          As for what Acts states about what Gentiles have to follow, that is different from what Jesus said about his followers. So the Bible contradicts itself.

          Also, if same-sex marriage is granted here, a church still does not have to marry same-sex couples. A church can refuse to marry anyone who they want.

          Finally, I’m not saying Christians need to follow all of the laws. I’m saying that it is hypocritical to take one law out of Leviticus, and then ignore all the other, simply because that one fits your view point. If you look at Acts, does it condemn homosexuality in the verse you provided? No, it doesn’t. So it is hypocritical then to even mention that law.

          1. Stanta

            “Most incedents if stoning in the New Testament were done under religious authority not for civil offenses.”

            Stephen was stoned by religious decree, not civil law. You must have read too quickly.

            I realize that you have some problems with Paul and his message for the Gentiles. But most Christians do believe he had personal revelations from Jesus if not outright instruction.
            Also from Paul in Acts 15 “7* After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.c 8And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.d 9He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.e 10Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?”

            I would say that you Dustin are placing the same yoke.

            Adding “28k ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, 29namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’”

          2. Dustin White

            What yoke? I’m not saying that Christians or Gentiles need to follow the law. I don’t see why you hang on that idea that I have never actually stated. Instead, I have simply showed what Jesus said on the subject.

            So if you want to accept Acts as the true word of God, then you have to ignore what Jesus specifically said, which was that his followers needed to keep the Law.

            As for stoning, you have now just moved the goal posts. If you read the various acts described in the Old Testament that are worthy of being stoned, you will see that most of them are religious concerns. The fact that stoning was still done up to the time of Paul, shows that stoning was still a liable manner of execution during that time.

            In fact, if one looks at the Mishna, which was redacted around 200 years after Jesus, shows that stoning was still an issue even then, for both civil and religious concerns. And yes, for crimes. It was capital punishment. Regardless of the fact that they had jails, they continued with stoning. So your argument simply is wrong.

      3. Stanta

        Justin, are you justified by the law or by faith?

        By the way, either your Belzian website is broke or you are afraid of this old feeble uneducated man. Or is there another explanation? I seemed to get cut off right after a post where I described your take on Christianity as very Gnostic and a blend of almost every faith out there, curious huh?

          1. Stanta

            I agree. Seems to think there is no law and the Bible is flawed. I can’t see why he is spending his money trying to become a Christian minister.

          2. Dustin White

            Maybe the two of you just don’t understand my position as you’re too busy attacking it? Stanta, you constantly say that I think the Bible is flawed, and there is no law, which is just a ridiculous statement based on ignorance.

            Yes, I find the Bible to have problems. Anyone who is honest with themselves will see that it contradicts itself from time to time, has historical inaccuracies, etc. If you look at any Biblical scholar who is respected at all, you will see that they have the same view point. This is exactly what is taught in seminaries. There is no problem with seeing problems in the Bible, it simply means one is giving the Bible the respect it deserves as one is not ignoring what it says.

            As for their being law, yes, I do think their are laws. I don’t see why you would state otherwise.

          3. Stanta

            Justified by Law? Are you capable of living your life entirely within the Law Dustin? We are justified by Grace, though His grace we are called to do the best we can under His Law.

            As for beliefs based on ignorance, I have seen many people come to the Lord in the retreats I help with. Retreats I have planned and run. We have very few back sliders. I did very little at these retreats then accept everyone with unconditional love and the Word. Success comes from God. If I were giving forth false doctrine I don’t believe He would have helped s as He has.

            I have yet to see any inaccuracies that change what the message of Christ was. In fact considering the many documents brought together in the Bible I would expect more.

            You on the other hand seem to make the argument many times that it is flawed and you and only a few select know the absolute truth. If it is flawed, why believe in it? Can you preach from a Bible that has all those inconsistencies and errors?

            One of the things you seem to be on the fence about is reincarnation. Would you show me in the Bible where that is part of doctrine? Though many Jews felt that John the Baptist was one of the old prophets come back to life, this was never claimed by him or Jesus. Paul states that there is only one life, do the best you can because there will be no second chance.

        1. Dustin White

          Why would I be afraid of you? You appear to only make ignorant attacks that have no real basis in reality. Looking at my site, it seems to be down, so thank you for bringing that to my attention. I will fix it once I have the time.

          As for faith or the law, I don’t think it is an either or situation. I think it is a both/and situation, as Paul states.

          1. Dustin White

            James 2:17, which states that faith, without works (or in context, works refers to the Law) is dead.

            There are long works written on this exact question. Paul was a Jew, who followed the Law. Jesus was a Jew, who followed the Law. The critique Paul made was that individuals were boasting because of their works of the Law. Yet, that is not what the Law is for. It isn’t something to stifle one, it is the ideal life that God has for people. It is a gift from God, and Jews follow it out of that love that they have for God.

            The Law is not something one can adhere to without fault, nor was it designed for such. That is where the Grace of God comes in.

            Paul also states, in Romans 3:19-20 that there is a purpose to God’s Law. That being that it defines sin. Without the Law, there would be no sin, and what Christ did would have had no purpose. Romans 5:13 backs this up. Without the Law, there is no sin. Romans 7:7-8 also repeats the same idea.

            In Romans 7:12, Paul calls the Law holy. Romans 2:14-15, states that even though Gentiles don’t have the Law, they still keep the Law as it is written in there hearts (meaning that the Law is a moral guide to even gentiles, and was placed there by God).

            1 Corinthians 7:19 states that keeping God’s commandments (which are the Laws) is what counts. Paul most likely refers to a reduced version, minus circumcision.

            Ephesians 6:1-3 Paul quotes the Law, and thus shows that it is still relevant.

            And really when it comes down to it, Paul appears to contradict himself anyway.

    2. Stan 5:48 That’s interesting, stoning stopped because it no longer fit the circustances. I don’t know how many times I’ve made the same point here. The Bible is used to put the hammer down on people Christians don’t like. Can’t open stores on Sun. until, Poof, it OK. Slowly, gay marriage will be OK.

      As Dusin pointed out, you pick and choose like all others have done for 2 thou. years.

      1. Stanta

        Open the stores on Sunday? For the most part a secular decision. As a former mayor you know there are people who will vote for their own interests and convenience. Now if you ask for Sunday off for religious reasons you are probably out of a job. Even though some companies will claim you may take some time off during Sunday for services, I wouldn’t recommend it.

        So I work when I had that situation, prayed all day within my heart, did my studies at home when done. Lived by the letter of the law, no. Live by the spirit of the law yes.

        1. Stanta

          The punishment for many years for many crimes was execution. I posted in an earlier thread that with the possibility now of making life in prison mean just that I no longer agree with that sentence. I didn’t say murder should be legal.

      2. Henry

        Jon: “Slowly, gay marriage will be OK.”

        The emporer also said Luke Skywalker could be turned to the dark side.

Comments are closed.