• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)[W:89,166]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

Do you eat shellfish and stone adulterers?


That's funny, I've also spent years *studying the bible intensely* and going to church (because I love God)...and I have yet to have any learned Christian claim that homosexual relationships are not in violation of moral law...but then again, most Christians don't spend a lot of time trying to distinguish moral law from the rest. They spend their times trying to avoid sin..of all types.

But, as I said, the Bible is full of warnings about those who distort the bible to suit their purposes. If your purpose is to normalize sin, then you are going to find a way to dismiss God's stated aversion to the particular sins you wish to normalize.

This is not a new tactic, and the fact that it is becoming more widespread with every day, and the people who engage in it are portraying themselves as "Biblical scholars" and "new christians" and such is just more evidence that the Bible is, in fact, the word of God, incorruptible.

Even by those who pretend they are being "Christ-like" when they try to corrupt it.
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

It does if you don't do it right.


How does gay sex hurt anyone?
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

That's incorrect. Christ was a rabbi, as was Paul, and there's have been many other learned rabbis over the ages who have become Messianic Jews / Rabbis.



They're also very wrong about that. Here's why:

1. The servant of Isaiah 53 is an innocent and guiltless sufferer. Israel is never described as sinless. Isaiah 1:4 says of the nation: "Alas sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!" He then goes on in the same chapter to characterize Judah as Sodom, Jerusalem as a harlot, and the people as those whose hands are stained with blood (verses 10, 15, and 21). What a far cry from the innocent and guiltless sufferer of Isaiah 53 who had "done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth!"

2. The prophet said: "It pleased the LORD to bruise him." Has the awful treatment of the Jewish people (so contrary, by the way, to the teaching of Jesus to love everyone) really been God's pleasure, as is said of the suffering of the servant in Isaiah 53:10 ? If, as some rabbis contend, Isaiah 53 refers to the holocaust, can we really say of Israel's suffering during that horrible period, "It pleased the LORD to bruise him?" Yet it makes perfect sense to say that God was pleased to have Messiah suffer and die as our sin offering to provide us forgiveness and atonement.

3. The person mentioned in this passage suffers silently and willingly. Yet all people, even Israelites, complain when they suffer! Brave Jewish men and women fought in resistance movements against Hitler. Remember the Vilna Ghetto Uprising? Remember the Jewish men who fought on the side of the allies? Can we really say Jewish suffering during the holocaust and during the preceding centuries was done silently and willingly?

4. The figure described in Isaiah 53 suffers, dies, and rises again to atone for his people's sins. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 53:10 for "sin-offering" is "asham," which is a technical term meaning "sin-offering." See how it is used in Leviticus chapters 5 and 6. Isaiah 53 describes a sinless and perfect sacrificial lamb who takes upon himself the sins of others so that they might be forgiven. Can anyone really claim that the terrible suffering of the Jewish people, however undeserved and unjust, atones for the sins of the world? Whoever Isaiah 53 speaks of, the figure described suffers and dies in order to provide a legal payment for sin so that others can be forgiven. This cannot be true of the Jewish people as a whole, or of any other mere human.

5. It is the prophet who is speaking in this passage. He says: "who has believed our message." The term "message" usually refers to the prophetic message, as it does in Jeremiah 49:14. Also, when we understand the Hebrew parallelism of verse 1, we see "Who has believed our message" as parallel to "to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed." The "arm of the Lord" refers to God's powerful act of salvation. So the message of the speaker is the message of a prophet declaring what God has done to save his people.

6. The prophet speaking is Isaiah himself, who says the sufferer was punished for "the transgression of my people," according to verse 8. Who are the people of Isaiah? Israel. So the sufferer of Isaiah 53 suffered for Israel. So how could he be Israel?

7. The figure of Isaiah 53 dies and is buried according to verses 8 and 9. The people of Israel have never died as a whole. They have been out of the land on two occasions and have returned, but they have never ceased to be among the living. Yet Jesus died, was buried, and rose again.

More reasons in the link below.

Why Israel Cannot be the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53


I am sure that you have cut/paste the response tons of time from that site. Let's first look to see WHO they are. They are a 'Reformed Missionary to the Jewish people', and 'Approved by the presbertarian Church'.. in other words, they are a group of Christians trying to convert jews.

Now, The 4th servant song is allegory and poetic.. But let's look at it in context. A lot of "Rev Fred Klett" is taking thing out of context and putting mish mash in. Come to think of it, he doesn't use anything in context of the Servant song at all, but rather bits and drabs from anyplace BUT Isaiah.

Let's look at some context now, but cultural and in Isaiah itself.

The use of ISAIAH 53, aka “the suffering servant” chapter has been consistently misquoted by missionaries trying to claim that the prophet Isaiah is speaking of Jesus and fulfills the prophecies that “he would suffer for our sins.” They often site the fact that “the servant” is singular and must therefore be talking about a single individual – Jesus. Though a thorough analysis can not been given in this limited space, we will explore some important points.

First, one must read the entire book of Isaiah in context and from an accurate Jewish translation (such as an Artscroll/ Mesorah Publication Bible). It was written by Isaiah who was a prophet from 619-533 B.C.E. In the original text there were no chapters and breaks. The book was written in fluid format and therefore, must be read as a whole. When doing so, you will note that this chapter, which is known as the “Fourth Servant Song” actually begins in chapter 52 verse 13.

When reading Isaiah and other text, God often calls Israel and Jacob (another reference to Israel), His “servant” in both the singular and plural. Some examples:

Isaiah 41:8-9 “But you, O Israel, My servant, Jacob, you whom I have chosen, offspring of Abraham who loved Me…and to whom I shall say: ‘You are my servant’ – I have chosen you and not rejected you.”1
Isaiah 44:1 “But hear now Jacob, My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen!”2
Isaiah 44: 21 “Remember these things, Jacob and Israel, for you are My servant: I fashioned you to be My servant: Israel do not forget Me!”
Isaiah 45:4 “..for the sake of My servant Jacob and Israel, My chosen one: I have proclaimed you by name…”
Isaiah 48:20 “…say, ‘Hashem (God) has redeemed His servant Jacob.”
Isaiah 49:3 “…You are my servant, Israel, in whom I take glory.”
Jeremiah 30: 10 “But as for you, do not fear My servant Jacob, the word of Hashem (G-d) and do not be afraid, Israel…”
Psalms Chapter 136:22 “A heritage for Israel, His (God’s) servant, for His kindness endures forever.”3

In Chapters 52 – 54, the prophet is referring to the gentile nations who have tormented and inflicted pain and suffering on the Jewish people. It is THESE nations who will be astounded and shocked to see that God has saved us from their persecution and returned us to our home, Israel: and, that ultimately, God will vindicate us for our suffering The same promises appear in the Book of Ezekiel 36:6-9 & 15 and in Jeremiah 30:8-13.
- See more at: Jews For Judaism | Isaiah 53 Explained
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

Do you eat shellfish and stone adulterers?

Yes (in moderation) and nope.

Nor do I attempt to convince anyone else to eat shellfish and stone adulterers.

Which of the ten commandments does eating shellfish violate?
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

Oh wait, I forgot. We're pretending the book of Leviticus necessarily makes homosexuality implicitly non-sinful anymore.

Carry on.
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

Which of the ten commandments does eating shellfish violate?

The 10 Commandments aren't the only rules in the Bible, and I'm sure you know this, seeing as how you are making yourself out to be quite the Biblical scholar.
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

How does gay sex hurt anyone?

From a previous post of mine.

Homosexual sin - No harm?

First, "gay pride" (two sins). They flaunt it in people's faces and try to legitimize it around the globe. You don't hear of "adultery pride" parades or "necrophilia pride" parades do you? But even if there were we'd take an equally stellar stance against those. We don't want to hear about it.

Second, most homosexuals who claim to be Christian try to persuade others it's not a sin, leading many (many) into perdition. We don't want to see even one soul lost.

Third, most homosexuals distort the scriptures in some fashion or another in order to try to justify their sin. The distort who Jesus is (saying he's not God so he never spoke out against gay sex sin); they make lengthly arguments against Leviticus, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc. Generally, they attack the Word of God and thus attack God himself. We defend the Word and God.

Fourth: Sin is a reproach to individuals and nations and brings God's disfavor on men and nations. Read Deuteronomy chapter 28 to see the curses of disobedience.

Fifth, they attack the Sons and Daughters of God when we stand up for the truth of God's Word. They call us bigots, homophobes, and all manner of names because we disagree with their stance. They pass "hate speech" laws to try to stifle the religious expression of others.

Sixth, they push their illicit agenda into every corner of America. Suing the Boy Scouts and anyone else who disagrees with them. They try and sometimes succeed in pushing their gay agenda in elementary schools and elsewhere where it doesn't belong. Nine year old children shouldn't have to hear that Billy's daddy is doing another guy, or that it's ok to do it. They push their agenda in people's faces until we're quite sick of it. We don't need to know which way people perform sex acts.

Seventh: (need I go on?) They (and heterosexual sinners) cost taxpayers untold billions in unnecessary health care costs to treat AIDS and other diseases they give to each other. It costs us all money out of our pockets.

And eighth: They refuse to repent of it, making their own salvation and those who they lead astray a serious question mark.

And there's more but that's for starters.
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

Celibacy isn't normal.

Abstinence isn't normal.

According to the Bible gluttony is a moral sin. According to research religious people in general are more likely to be obese - gluttons - than non-religious people.

Trying to justify gay sex sin?
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

I am sure that you have cut/paste the response tons of time from that site. Let's first look to see WHO they are. They are a 'Reformed Missionary to the Jewish people', and 'Approved by the presbertarian Church'.. in other words, they are a group of Christians trying to convert jews.

Sorry, but shooting the messenger won't work. The arguments they make are excellent.

Now, The 4th servant song is allegory and poetic.. But let's look at it in context. A lot of "Rev Fred Klett" is taking thing out of context and putting mish mash in. Come to think of it, he doesn't use anything in context of the Servant song at all, but rather bits and drabs from anyplace BUT Isaiah.

Let's look at some context now, but cultural and in Isaiah itself.

Thanks for the information. I'll stick with what numerous rabbis have said - that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah.

I have also encountered many false arguments from "Jews for Jesus" in the past that don't hold up to close scrutiny.

By the way, and I'm just curious about your individual view on this - why do you say God allowed the Holocaust of the Jewish people?
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

From a previous post of mine.

Homosexual sin - No harm?

First, "gay pride" (two sins). They flaunt it in people's faces and try to legitimize it around the globe. You don't hear of "adultery pride" parades or "necrophilia pride" parades do you? But even if there were we'd take an equally stellar stance against those. We don't want to hear about it.

Second, most homosexuals who claim to be Christian try to persuade others it's not a sin, leading many (many) into perdition. We don't want to see even one soul lost.

Third, most homosexuals distort the scriptures in some fashion or another in order to try to justify their sin. The distort who Jesus is (saying he's not God so he never spoke out against gay sex sin); they make lengthly arguments against Leviticus, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc. Generally, they attack the Word of God and thus attack God himself. We defend the Word and God.

Fourth: Sin is a reproach to individuals and nations and brings God's disfavor on men and nations. Read Deuteronomy chapter 28 to see the curses of disobedience.

Fifth, they attack the Sons and Daughters of God when we stand up for the truth of God's Word. They call us bigots, homophobes, and all manner of names because we disagree with their stance. They pass "hate speech" laws to try to stifle the religious expression of others.

Sixth, they push their illicit agenda into every corner of America. Suing the Boy Scouts and anyone else who disagrees with them. They try and sometimes succeed in pushing their gay agenda in elementary schools and elsewhere where it doesn't belong. Nine year old children shouldn't have to hear that Billy's daddy is doing another guy, or that it's ok to do it. They push their agenda in people's faces until we're quite sick of it. We don't need to know which way people perform sex acts.

Seventh: (need I go on?) They (and heterosexual sinners) cost taxpayers untold billions in unnecessary health care costs to treat AIDS and other diseases they give to each other. It costs us all money out of our pockets.

And eighth: They refuse to repent of it, making their own salvation and those who they lead astray a serious question mark.

And there's more but that's for starters.


So you agree gay sex doesn't actually hurt anyone?
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

So you want to hear my antidotal stories, huh? lol Okay, well, I have a cousin that was disowned by his parents because he married a non LDS girl. And I had a friend whose own mother turned him in and had him excommunicated because he was Gay. Aaand....I had an LDS landlord who was a Bishop and insisted that I get him into the private nightclub that I worked at so that he could bring the woman that he was cheating on his wife with, dancing or he said he would evict me. Aaaand, I've had LDS employers try to take tithe out of my paychecks without my permission. Aaaand....one of my HS friends was forced to give up her baby for adoption because the church doesn't approve of single moms. And...that's about all I remember for now....oh wait....when I was 8 years old, I went to primary to be with the other kids, but because my parents didn't attend church and I wasn't baptized, the teacher made me sit separate from the other kids and put my name for roll call ten empty spaces below everyone else and wouldn't give me some of the badges and rhinestones for my bandlo that I had earned for memorizing bible verses and teachings. That was the first time I remember feeling what discrimination and religious intolerance was like. But don't worry, I got over it.

LDS (Mormons) are not Christians.
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

Yep, but not all will receive him and his salvation, so many will be lost.



His blood covers all sins, but like I documented, there will be differences in rewards in the afterlife.



I'll stick with what I presented earlier on the rewards.

Which translation do you like?

I generally read from the NASB or ESV and I have the Greek Bible that I use as a parallel. I prefer William Barclay's Bible Commentaries, primarily for their fundamental approach and the degree of historical background research that he's put into them.
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

So you agree gay sex doesn't actually hurt anyone?

depends if you're the pitcher or the catcher, I would suppose...
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

I don't know. Maybe there's amendments. Which of the ten commandment does homosexuality violate?

Yes (in moderation) and nope.

Nor do I attempt to convince anyone else to eat shellfish and stone adulterers.

Which of the ten commandments does eating shellfish violate?
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

I know, and I wouldn't ask somebody to be accountable for anybody else. I was simply pointing out hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy can be found in almost every institution, organization, or belief system, even among gay rights organizations. Why single out the Christian faith?
 
Posting this article from Time.com. It was written by a pastor, and co-founder of The Christian Left. It says so much of what I feel, about how embarrassed I am at the turn Christianity has taken. I just thought it'd be a nice read for anybody who felt the way I do.

Well let’s take a look at your article…

I don’t like telling people I’m a Christian.
It’s not that I’m ashamed of being a Christian; I’m not – at all. It is just that the word “Christian” comes with so much ugly baggage.

“Ugly baggage”? You mean feeding the hungry, healing the sick, working with the poor, innumerable charities, etc.?

Wow.

Truthfully, I don’t blame people who assume that if you’re Christian you’re anti-LGBT…

Actually we’re anti-sin but pro-people.

There’s a difference there.

Just sayin’.

…anti-abortion…

What wrong with being anti-abortion.

“Pro-life” saves lives, ya know?

…anti-real equality…

I don’t even know what this means?

…anti-other religions…

Well, yea! Just the fact that Christianity is a religion would preclude other religions, now wouldn’t it?

And Christianity is exclusive. When Christ said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6), that excludes a lot of people from eternal life and condemns them to everlasting torment.

…and pretty much anti-anything else that one small but loud subset of Christians find offensive or threatening.

Yea, once again, I don’t even know what this means.

It completely makes sense. It’s why I don’t want to use the word to describe my own beliefs.

I get it.

Who can blame people for thinking Christians are all anti-everything kind of people when members of the U.S. congress like Michele Bachmann present themselves as speaking for all Christians –and via radio waves – accuses gay people of not only threatening the sanctity of “traditional marriage” but claim they are pedophiles who want to “freely prey on little children sexually.”

I get it. I really do.

Do you really?

Let’s first take a look at the “threatening of traditional marriage comment”. True--divorce rates among heterosexuals is the biggest threat to marriage but “homosexual marriage” does present a threat to the institution. Frankly, if you can define “marriage” as being between people of the same sex then you can define marriage as anything you like.

And as far as homosexuals being “pedophiles who want to ‘freely prey on little children sexually’”, I’ll be the first to say that this is painting one group of people with a very wide brush.

But still we cannot ignore folks like Michael Swift who wrote in the Gay Manifesto, “[w]e shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.”

And let’s not forget the demand from the first gay march on Washington (1972) that was then repeated in the second gay march on Washington (1987) which is the repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

See, parents like me hear stuff like this and we worry.

Do you really blame us?

I don’t want to be that kind of Christian. So, if that’s the only option, I’m opting out. And, I’m not alone. A whole slue of Christians is opting out as well.

Being a Christian means--in part--to stand up for certain beliefs no matter how politically unpopular those beliefs might be. And no matter what you believe some people are always going to take offense to it (which does not give anyone the right to be offensive).

Me? I’m strong enough to stand tall and say I am a Christian. I can do this because I am not going to allow others to define me.

I’ll define myself.
 
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

So you agree gay sex doesn't actually hurt anyone?

How you get that from what I presented in post #307 is beyond me.

And, as The Baron just posted,

"But still we cannot ignore folks like Michael Swift who wrote in the Gay Manifesto, “[w]e shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.”
 
Last edited:
Re: I Want My Christianity Back (Without the Ugly Baggage)

True, calling it a sin is not hatred. I would never say that it was. However, we don't hear the same outrage against fat people for the sin of gluttony, which affects our countries health care costs and even in some cases makes them qualified for disability? That has a direct and palpable affect on our society. Why is it that gay people are denied the same rights as fat people? The sin is still a sin, regardless of which sin - correct?

Look, I shiver when I think of two men having sex. It ain't my thing. I just can't imagine it. But, as an American that believes in the Constitutional Rights of all Americans, I have a hard time denying them the same rights that I have. The same privileges of citizenship that I have. To me, there is a difference between God's law and Man's law. Some are similar - murder for instance and other crimes/sins that have a negative and detrimental effect on society at large. SSM, to me anyway, doesn't reach to that level. It has no detrimental effect on society, and only allows gay people to enjoy the same liberty and freedom that you and I enjoy.

You, of all people, know how conservative I am. I just have a very hard time denying people equal liberty and freedom if they have not broken a law, have been convicted by a jury of their peers, and are incarcerated for that crime. Gay people are breaking no laws, causing no harm to society (including Christianity because our religion is not suffering due to their existence), and for the most part are just as much a productive and integrable part of our society, economy, history and future. And, as a Christian, I turn the other cheek and refuse (to the best of my ability although I fail at times) to not judge lest I be judged. I feel it is the role of God Himself to judge, and not mine. Therefore, when it comes to secular law, the law of our land, I keep my Religion out of my government, and the government out of my Religion. To me, every citizen is equal in the face of the law, even sinners.



1. Not everyone who is fat is a glutton. Gluttony is the sin of making food an idol, letting it take the place of more important things in your life, or taking more than your fair share and causing others to go hungry thereby. It is related to the sin of being a drunkard... which is not simply being a drinker, but someone whose life revolves around drinking to the point that drinking dominates that life, usurping the place of Christ in that person's life and becoming an idol.

2. I said nothing about law or legislation. Just sin.
 
But still we cannot ignore folks like Michael Swift who wrote in the Gay Manifesto, “[w]e shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.”

And let’s not forget the demand from the first gay march on Washington (1972) that was then repeated in the second gay march on Washington (1987) which is the repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

See, parents like me hear stuff like this and we worry.

Do you really blame us?

That's powerful.
 
Moderator's Warning:
This thread is closed. The level of incivility and disrespect, on all sides, has risen to levels not acceptable in this forum. Several infractions have already had to be issued, and the thread has become an attractive nuisance to trolls, on the edge of becoming a religion-bashing thread entirely. Accordingly, this one is a wrap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom