Originally posted by whodey
What do you call publically calling the religous leaders a brood of vipors and hypocrites? What about taking a whip to them?

Of course, you could argue that this was not grounded in love, but I beg to differ. As the saying goes, sometimes love must be tough. I know, parents at times need to get ugly in order to be loving so as to correct their children

Perception is subjective. When a parent firmly corrects a child, there are some who might perceive that correction as cruel, when in fact, that correction might well be the most kind thing that could be done at the time. Personally, most of the time, I don't know the complete circumstances and so I have to rely on the resources I have at hand to understand those circumstances. Every spiritual path I have studied admonishes using spiritual ways of knowing, which usually reach beyond the five senses that provide the human brain with information...for lack of an adequate term "heart" or "Spirit" is referenced as a means of differentiating.

If you look at my post with Spirit or Heart, you will see that I am in agreement with you...

It is a matter of semantics, perhaps. I don't use the word you used to describe Christ's actions...

In my own path, I find the terms "skillful" and "less skillful" better terms for me to understand human action. As with parent (skilled) and child (less skillful) either action might be rooted in Love. How can I know or say exactly? Again, one must rely on resources, both human and Divinely gifted to make that determination. Most of the time, I just have to say, "I don't know..."

Originally posted by whodey
In short, according to the Bible, Christ did not comdemn the world for their sin, rather, he came to convict them of their sin. He came to be a light into the world so that others would be attracted and also become lights themselves. However, when it came to those who proported to be lights unto the world and who were not, he turned ugly!! 😠

After all, ...[text shortened]... pocrisy. How then is one to know if the message is "true" if it is preaced without example?

Thanks for your answer. If I understand you right you are saying that Christ did not rebuke the homosexuals but showed them lovelingly they were wrong?
What makes you think that Christ thought homosexuality is wrong? Where did He give you the slightest impression to make you think homosexuals are wrong (and should be rebuked)?

I see some people compare rebuking gay people with rebuking (their) children. I think children should be corrected whem they do things wrong. Rebuke is one of the means to correct their behaviour. But rebuke makes no sense at all without clear explanation why they are rebuked.

So I have to repeat: why should homosexuals be rebuked?
Hypucrisy deserves rebuke, we all seem to agree here. But why homosexuality?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]So now it's only "leaders". Not too long ago it was also members. And if I recall correctly at one time it was any homosexual that would attend your church.

In my church the members are referred to as leaders in the church. They don't join just to take up space.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne


You use the Bible as a weapon to further you bigotry. You point to the Bible and say that you do this because it is "sin". However you don't apply this evenly to all sins. You allow greed, gluttony, etc. to go by with only a wink. You allow your own sins. This is hypocrisy.

Christ used the Bible against the devil as he was being tempted in the wilderness as a weapon as well. The serpent tempted him with his hunger to make bread out of stones as he was attempting to fast, but he said, "No, for it is written, man shall not live by bread alone...." The serpent then tempted him to worship him, but the said, "No, for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and ONLY him shall thou worship". So when TOO comes to me and asks me about homosexual unions I say, "No, for it is written..."

As for my own sins, I cannot bring them before God to repent of them if I cannot even agree that they are sins.

Originally posted by souverein
What makes you think that Christ thought homosexuality is wrong?

Although there is no recorded of Christ addressing this issue in particular, he said that he came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it. In fact, Christ continually referred to the law and pointed to the prophesies about himself. So it would, therefore, be reasonable to assume he saw the law as something to obey.

As most well know, homosexuality is referred to in the law as an abomination to God. So what OT abominations, if any, did Christ do away with if he did not come to destroy the law?

We also see Christ talking at one point about marriage as he takes a hard line about divorce and remarrying. In fact, his apostles even marvelled at this hard teaching. Again, he did not seem to be laissez faire regarding sexual conduct.


As for him speaking about sexual misconduct, we see the woman caught in adultery. He speaks of it as "sin", but notice he did not condemn her, rather, he convicts her. This is the Christly example we are to follow with other sins as well. In fact, he showed mercy on her, and then told her to go and sin no more. Of course, if you can't agree that it was sin, then you can't follow his example, now can you? In fact, that is why he came. It was to deliver people from their sins.

And lastly, we see Paul take a hard line on homosexual conduct. Let me know if you are unaware of the verses I am speaking of.

Originally posted by whodey
Christ used the Bible against the devil as he was being tempted in the wilderness as a weapon as well. The serpent tempted him with his hunger to make bread out of stones as he was attempting to fast, but he said, "No, for it is written, man shall not live by bread alone...." The serpent then tempted him to worship him, but the said, "No, for it is written, ...[text shortened]... cannot bring them before God to repent of them if I cannot even agree that they are sins.

Jesus didn't use the Bible to further bigotry, like you do. Not surprising that you omitted the most important phrase when you try to liken yourself to Jesus.

You also keep ignoring the most important part of my posts:
"You point to the Bible and say that you do this because it is "sin". However you don't apply this evenly to all sins. You allow greed, gluttony, etc. to go by with only a wink. You allow your own sins. This is hypocrisy."

Do you really think that if you don't acknowledge it, it isn't true?

Originally posted by whodey
Although there is no recorded of Christ addressing this issue in particular, he said that he came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it. In fact, Christ continually referred to the law and pointed to the prophesies about himself. So it would, therefore, be reasonable to assume he saw the law as something to obey.

As most well know, homosexuality is refer ...[text shortened]... line on homosexual conduct. Let me know if you are unaware of the verses I am speaking of.

There are many examples where Christians have readjusted the Law. There is quite a difference between readjusting en destroying. Do we still have slaves? Haven't we changed the position of women? Haven't we readjusted the idea of "Go and multiply"? While time goes on, our world is changing dramatically and - whatever belief we have - we have to readjust our concepts and moral judgements. I would say it needs rebuke if someone refuses to adjust to new data and changes in our world of to-day.

We seem halfheartedly to agree that Jesus nowhere condemned or rejected homosexuality. That makes it easier for gay Christians to come to terms with themselves in relation to their belief. I think this gives Christians the freedom to explore conscientiously what fits them best, as long as there is not done harm to others.
Paul is a slightly different matter. He did mention homosexuality, although the context in which makes it disputable if he was referring to homosexuality in general. I guess you point to his letter to the Corinthians? I am not sure if that had anything to do with condemning homosexuality. Corinth was in his days a harbour city in which paid sex and children abuse flourished. I think he admonished his followers to stay away from such practices. I would think an sensible advice, still worth listening too.

Personally I think gay people are an important help in managing the population growth, one of the major problems we have to tackle these days for future generations. I hope Christianity can become an ally in that struggle.

Originally posted by whodey
In my church the members are referred to as leaders in the church. They don't join just to take up space.

leaders have followers. not everyone gets to be a leader

Originally posted by whodey
Although there is no recorded of Christ addressing this issue in particular, he said that he came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it. In fact, Christ continually referred to the law and pointed to the prophesies about himself. So it would, therefore, be reasonable to assume he saw the law as something to obey.

As most well know, homosexuality is refer ...[text shortened]... line on homosexual conduct. Let me know if you are unaware of the verses I am speaking of.

you betray yourself by your argument. If the OT law is the standard by which all people should live, then we can't pick and chose which laws we will follow and which we won't. God's word says if you break one law then you have broken them all. If you work on the sabbath, that is a sin, if you wear cloths with more than one type of fiber you are sinning. if you plant a garden with more than one type of plant then you are sinning, the same goes for gread, sloth, gluttony, divorce and a whole lot more. Why single out gays? like ToO says, why not toss fat people out of your church? People divorce and remarry, toss them out as well.
Either Christ fulfilled Levitical law or he didn't. If he did then the law we operate under is to love God and Love each other. Sin then becomes explained thusly: there are 3 ways to sin. To offend God, to offend your nieghbor, or to offend yourself. Of course the second 2 also offend God, for we are His creation. In the light of the Love commandments mentioned above, homosexuality does not break either of those laws. Perhaps it could be said that one is offending (or harming) oneself with these actions, but by that standard it would be the same as being obese.

Originally posted by duecer
leaders have followers. not everyone gets to be a leader

EVERYONE leads by example whether they like it or not.

Originally posted by duecer
you betray yourself by your argument. If the OT law is the standard by which all people should live, then we can't pick and chose which laws we will follow and which we won't. God's word says if you break one law then you have broken them all. If you work on the sabbath, that is a sin, if you wear cloths with more than one type of fiber you are sinning. if yo rming) oneself with these actions, but by that standard it would be the same as being obese.

But I don't think that Christ did away with honoring the Sabbath. In fact, I think that if you work 24/7, in the eyes of God that is sinning and I think Christ would have agreed. In terms of slavery, it was never regarded as a sin even though in modern times it is viewed as a sin. For me, slavery is an allowance for the conditions created by the fall of man for him to able to function. It is akin to divorce. Even though the law allowed for divorce, Christ was quick to point out that this was simply a provision for fallen man to be able to cope at times. It was NEVER what God wanted. Having said that, it was NEVER mentioned as an abomination as homosexuality was, was it?

As for the rest, I'm not sure of what you are referring to. I will say that with the coming of Christ, the whole issue of making sacrifices and such was done away with because he became our sacrifice. In addition, after Christ had come you still had Paul condemning homosexuality. So the abomination of homosexuality apparently did not end after Christ came, unless you question Pauls inspiration for writing such things. You would then have to conclude that some other event that we are unaware of transformed the law.

Originally posted by whodey
Having said that, it was NEVER mentioned as an abomination as homosexuality was, was it?

Are there any other abominations aside from homosexuality, or is that pretty much the only one?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Are there any other abominations aside from homosexuality, or is that pretty much the only one?

There are a few off the top of my head.

1. Taking the Lords name in vein
2. Besteality
3. Offering offspring to idols as a sacrifice.
4. Drinking blood

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Are there any other abominations aside from homosexuality, or is that pretty much the only one?

Clams, shrimp, lobster, etc. are abominations.

Leviticus 11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

Many other things are forbidden such as sowing a field with two kinds of seed, wearing a garment of two kinds of material, trimming the side-growth of your hair, trimming your beard, etc.

Leviticus 19:19
You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.


Leviticus 19:27
You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.

You are to put a knife to your throat if you are a glutton
Proverbs 23:2
Put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony.

You are not to labor to be rich
Proverbs 23:4
Labour not to be rich:

Likely all of the above are allowed by members of his church even though they set "bad examples".

Whodey is a bigot and a hypocrite who takes selectively from the Bible to further his bigotry. Of this there is no doubt.

Originally posted by whodey
There are a few off the top of my head.

1. Taking the Lords name in vein
2. Besteality
3. Offering offspring to idols as a sacrifice.
4. Drinking blood

Don't Christians regularly drink the blood of Jesus? Should they be rebuked?