Different Gospel

Hi Joshua

I think you missed this one.
Could I get a reply please.

 

I was asking you what your take on the passages where before I sayed. I do believe a changed life is part of the Good new.

[ November 27, 2002, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: John3v36 ]

 

so what about the "such were"

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

and

Ezekiel 36
25 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.
26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

What is it saying?

 

This is sheer lunacy. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. This is typical liberal theology. The following is a condensed course we'll call "Liberal Theology 101."

"Once upon a time there was a man named Jesus. He was a Jewish cynic and teacher of great wisdom who bravely fought against the male dominated patriarchal system of his day. He proclaimed a reign of God based on liberty, equality, and the brotherhood of man. Because they were threatened by this radical new world view Jesus espoused, to protect their political and economic power, the Roman and Jewish leaders of that time killed him. Although dead, His teachings were so vivid to His followers that they spoke of Him as though He were still alive, although they never intended to be taken literally.

Unfortunately, some radical fundamentalist converts to His cause, who never actually knew Jesus, took this talk way too seriously and began to expect that He would actually return soon to establish His Kingdom. When he didn't, they were very disappointed. So they invented (made up) new ideas, actually pagan in origin, about a life after death in which they would finally meet Him. Meanwhile, the religio-political patriarchal domination system of that day, becoming increasingly fearful of this fast growing movement devoted to the dead man Jesus, decided that it must take over, or co-opt this movement.

Thus, the manipulated followers of Jesus became 'the church' and began establishing rigid dogma that had little or nothing to do with the real Jesus or what he really stood for. They compiled 'scripture' written long after Jesus' death by people who claimed to know Jesus but who really did not. A small amount of this scripture was based on fragments of fact, but most of it was made up.

Denying who Jesus really was and what he really stood for, these domineering oppressors (the church) set about to use these cleverly invented scriptures to continue oppressing people who disagreed or interfered with it, especially women, racial minorities and homosexuals. Jesus became just a figurehead for a new domination system. But thank goodness a few courageous intellectual visionaries stood up against these oppressive power mongers. Confronted by science and reason, the 'church' finally lost its monopoly on power, and eventually all truly enlightened people ceased to take this group and its teachings very seriously.

But unfortunately, the myths and stories spun by the group continued to captivate a lot of ignorant uneducated people, who although lacking intellect, nonetheless still wielded significant political influence and power. And unbelievably, to this day, they (the church) still want to oppress women, racial minorities, and especially homosexuals, while actively resisting scientific and ecological consciousness, thus preventing the implementation of the true reign of God about which the real Jesus spoke."

(Adapted from "The Mythology of the Jesus Seminar, by Mark Tooley")

The good news is that liberal churches are on the decline.

The Fruits of Liberalism

In the Father,

Russ <><

 

Translated:

The Bible has no real authority. It is open to personal interpretation. It has many good principles regarding how people may choose to live if they want to, but by no means does it contain any objective standard of truth by which they must live in order to maintain a right relationship with God.

Translated:

Fundamentalists, it appears, are nothing more than rigid religious oppressors who are dumb enough to believe the Bible actually is an unchanging objective standard of truth (which of course doesn't exist) to which culture must conform, and not vice versa.

Did God really say.... the serpent still hisses.

In the Father,

Russ <><

[ November 28, 2002, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: new man ]

 

Sift through the Scripture. Are you saying pick and choose what you like and what you don't? After all, the action of sifting is getting rid of what you want and keeping what you do, like panning for gold.

There are some murders on deathrow who would say that murder was just a cultural thing back in the times of Jesus and is no longer a sin. They would say that they should not be in jail because they are born murderers. We can't prove they weren't just like we can't absolutely prove gays are not born with that incling (even though I do not believe they aren't born gay).

 

Wow, Russ! That was tremendous!

Yes, the serpent still hisses....until that day when he is thrown into the lake of fire for ever and ever! Hallelujah!

 

None of these people you refer to were authors. With the exception of Leviticus (not the author) they were people the biblical authors wrote about. This is flawed thinking anyway. Should we "ask" Cain if murder is ok? Should we ask Saul if consulting the dead is ok? Maybe we should ask Ananias and Sapphira if it's ok to lie to the Holy Spirit? BTW, there is no mention in the book of Ruth of premarital sex. I guess the next story you'll tell is that David and Jonathan were gay lovers? I've heard other liberals accuse God of being a mass murderer. They also like to accuse God of baby killing. Wouldn't want to be in their shoes when they have to answer for that.

Translated:

"Each person has an equal right to claim or do what s/he believes best for him/her. Since there is no final authority nor any firm anchor point for moral/ethical behavior, one can do as one wishes."

It has been said that redefinition of terms is the best disguise for perpetrating personal self-deception and an intellectual hoax on readers that is available to an ingenious mind. This is a true statement.

In the Father,

Russ <><

 

In all humbleness, your views of the Bible (Genesis--for example), your beliefs in homosexuality as not a sin, among a general extremely liberal attitude is definitely becoming mainline in many churches today. I think the Bible is clear on the corruption which will occur even in the churches and this is an example. Sorry, but in all honestly, I have to call it like I see it.

As far as Southern Baptists affirming slavery is concerned, there is no difference in them being wrong about something that is truly sin and you being wrong about homosexuality being sin.

Finally, you only pick the portions of the Bible you wish to believe. Such as women deacons, etc. If you don't take Genesis literally then why should your flock (or congregation) assume that you take the ressurection of Jesus literally--just because you say it.

Sure your church brought a lot of homosexuals in -- which you said would not be going to church without the understanding of your church and deacons.

Our town is full of crack addicts. I could have half of them in church next Sunday if I told them it was not a sin to continue using Crack after they became Christians. You must draw the line somewhere rather than moving it around to allow Christians to believe that living in habitual sin is okay. Using your reasoning, I bet I could justify the use of crack by a Christian using the Bible. Just like Genesis--pick and choose-pick and choose.

[ November 28, 2002, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

Philip, AMEN!

 

Sounds like a line has been drawn.

It seems like different languages are being spoken here. Who's being allowed to live in habitual sin? No one, IMO. If homosexuality is not sinful, then not stopping someone from being gay isn't allowing them to live in habitual sin. I, of course, understand that some believe homosexuality to be sinful, but to argue that Joshua (since he's being picked at here) is consciously encouraging people to sin is absurd.

Given the premise (homosexuality is not sin), you can't use language outside the realm of that premise to disprove it, or to prove encouragement of sin.

I hope that makes sense. Because I do understand (sorta) the points being made, but it also sounds like Joshua's being accused of letting people languish in sin. If he believed homosexuality to be sinful and still did not encourage repentance, then some of the arguments here are valid (I'm not going into the merits of homosexuality here). But since that is not the case, many of the arguments are not valid.

Again, I get that - based on some people's understanding of truth - it seems that Joshua is doing exactly what he's being accused of. But the language being used is different on each side. If that needs further explanation, let me know.

And no, I'm not playing relativist here. There certainly is truth. Personally, I believe that Joshua is the one speaking it.

 

the truth of the matter is, and i posted on this subject once before is that to use the bible as a metaphor and to simply discount what the bible clearly states as sin, and to liberalize the bible, is to blatantly teach and preach a different Jesus and a different gospel. i cannot dance around this issue even if the moderators dont like what i say. if we are to stay biblical and honest to Gods word then let us call it as the apostle paul would.

 

But isn't that the issue? That it isn't clear? It must not be clear if different people who are faithful servants of the Lord and are prayerfully studying the Bible come to different conclusions.

I realize it is popular to say that some of us liberals are spinning Scripture, but that's just untrue. Certainly, we all come to the table with our own notions and opinions, but it is too often said that we liberals just want to Bible to fit what we already believe, which is about as insulting as it gets. No one on "the other side" seems to understand that we think we're just as right (and just as much) as you think you're right. Yet we get lambasted and it's far too often suggested we're being dishonest or deceitful, or worse, that our salvation is not in order.

I certainly don't want to encourage relativism, but I wonder at how many of us are open to the idea that we may be wrong. At any rate, we should strive not to insult each others intelligence or attack each others salvation or relationship with the Lord. That happens about as often as the overt insults, and is just as much a sign of the discussion taking a nasty downward turn.

 

[/QUOTE]

i will take issue with what you claim against the clear understanding of what the word of God tells us, and that is homosexuality is sin and no less an abomination. your theory that it is unclear because some liberals try to say that it is not sin does not hold water. read the verses again and honestly say with a straight face that Gods word is unclear about that. as far as you getting lambasted, consider it a warning that those who distort Gods word will be held accountable.
again i call on all liberal teachers and preachers to resign and leave their office.

[ November 29, 2002, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: massdak ]

 

Did you miss what I said about prayerful study and faith in Christ? I'm emphatically NOT talking about people who just throw things out, or say "well, I don't like it, so it must not be true." I'm talking of legitimately different understandings. But maybe you don't believe those are possible, or that those who hold the "wrong" belief in certain matters just can't be prayerful, faithful students of Scripture?

Disagreement does not always indicate lack of clarity. In this instance, though, I'm disputing what so many people call a clear statement of sin in regard to homosexuality.

I know I won't heed your "call." I see no basis for it.

You should know (and I'm sure you do, I'm just being nice) that there's a difference between criticizing ideas and insulting people. I would hope that your way is to do the former rather than the latter, but I'm starting to doubt that. Unfortunately.

Are we being mindful, or just crotchety? There are, certainly, differences of opinion based on personal understanding of Scripture. But if we don't at least attempt to understand each other (not necessarily to agree with each other), what are we doing? We're certainly not striving for better understanding.

 

Did you miss what I said about prayerful study and faith in Christ? I'm emphatically NOT talking about people who just throw things out, or say "well, I don't like it, so it must not be true." I'm talking of legitimately different understandings. But maybe you don't believe those are possible, or that those who hold the "wrong" belief in certain matters just can't be prayerful, faithful students of Scripture?

Disagreement does not always indicate lack of clarity. In this instance, though, I'm disputing what so many people call a clear statement of sin in regard to homosexuality.

I know I won't heed your "call." I see no basis for it.

You should know (and I'm sure you do, I'm just being nice) that there's a difference between criticizing ideas and insulting people. I would hope that your way is to do the former rather than the latter, but I'm starting to doubt that. Unfortunately.

Are we being mindful, or just crotchety? There are, certainly, differences of opinion based on personal understanding of Scripture. But if we don't at least attempt to understand each other (not necessarily to agree with each other), what are we doing? We're certainly not striving for better understanding.</font>[/QUOTE]no no no no no, this is not about understanding differences of opinion, it is the clear understanding and accepting Gods word, without the liberal spin and confusion. i do not need to understand error. liberals need to understand Gods word and accept it. stop applauding homosexual and all liberal error. again i call on all liberal teachers and preachers to resign and leave their office.