Do you fund evil?

[Shamgar]

Do you fund evil? Bush said if people stop funding terrorism terrorism will go away. Why do you fund abortion?

Click here:
http://img183.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img183& ... mon0by.jpg
if image is removed.

[Shamgar]

How? Simple I don't like the typical Christian. You can match my thoughts and actions straight to the Scriptures. . . if you understood them

Linking one's thoughts and actions to the scripture is no guarantee of correctness. The Pharisees could say the same. The Pharisees also felt that they knew better than anybody else what the true meaning of scripture is.

Please see my edit. "Simple I don't act like the typical Christian."

Yes, very obvious, that is how I determined you to be Pharisee, immediatly.

[micatala]

Well, I really don't want to get into a name-calling match, but I guess I deserved that to some extent.

I am not saying I know better than anyone else what scripture says. I am trying to make a case for my interpretation, and I am certainly willing to allow that I may be wrong and that other interpretations are possible.

My criticisms of you position are partly based on the fact that you clearly seem to think that you do know better than anybody else what scripture says.

[Shamgar]

Well, I really don't want to get into a name-calling match, but I guess I deserved that to some extent.

I am not saying I know better than anyone else what scripture says. I am trying to make a case for my interpretation, and I am certainly willing to allow that I may be wrong and that other interpretations are possible.

My criticisms of you position are partly based on the fact that you clearly seem to think that you do know better than anybody else what scripture says.

Yes, that would be "evil" that I have spent days, weeks, months, years studying the Scriptures so I might know something about the Scriptures more than you.

2 Tim 2: 15 Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

Psalms 119: 97 MEM. Oh how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day. 98 Through Your commandments You make me wiser than my enemies, for they are ever with me. 99 I have more understanding than all my teachers; for Your testimonies are my prayer. 100 I understand more than the old men, because I keep Your commandments. 101 I have kept my feet from every evil way, so that I might keep Your word. 102 I have not departed from Your judgments; for You have taught me. 103 How sweet are Your words to my taste! More than honey to my mouth! 104 Through Your commandments I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way.

I'll be you think the Psalmist was "naughty" for hating every false way since being a "hater" is "evil".

[micatala]

Yes, that would be "evil" that I have spent days, weeks, months, years studying the Scriptures so I might know something about the Scriptures more than you.

No, I would certainly not say you are evil for studying the scriptures. Whether you actually know more scripture than I, or have a better understanding of it than I is open to question.

2 Tim 2: 15 Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

I also study earnestly, and do my best to rightly divide the Word. I don't see this as a contest. In my view, we are both fallible human beings who happen to disagree.

With regards to your Psalm, I would not disagree that we should 'hate every false way'. Howevever, the Psalmist is applying this to himself and his own behavior. He is talking about judging himself and his own behavior. This is different than hating a person, or putting oneself in judgment over another.

I have never said one should do evil or reject the good. I have disagreed with you in your interpretation of Scripture regarding what is evil, and I have disagreed with you in regards to what we as believers should do, and what we should as a larger society, even when we do agree on what is evil.

Since you think I am 'shadow-boxing', I will make my view plain.

I do not think homosexuality in and of itself is evil or sinful. I believe when Paul condemns 'homosexual offenders', he is talking about a much smaller more specific class of people than all those who would describe themselves as homosexual. I admit, I do not currently have any references to support this, but I have seen analysis in the past that supports this interpretation, based on the original language. I also think this position is not at all inconsistent if you take the passages Paul writes in their larger context. I admit there is room for debate on the issue, and that you have scripture that you can cite to support your view, but I have also shown that your interpretations are not the only ones that can be taken, and are not consistent with other passages of scripture.

I do believe that we should put God above our bodiliy desires, and this applies to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. The sin is not in the act or desire itself, but in putting the desires of our flesh ahead of our relationship with God. I believe that God desires that 'we seek his kingdom first.' How is a person, who has searched their heart to its depth and can come to no other conclusion than they were made by God as a homosexual, to try to do this?

As heterosexuals, we have a sanctioned outlet for our sexuality. Why would we deny this to homosexuals? I do not believe that God would. In my view, many Christians are doing this, and as I have said, they are doing so for reasons other than trying to follow scripture, otherwise they would not be so inconsistent about who they condemn and who they do not.

[Shamgar]

No, I would certainly not say you are evil for studying the scriptures. Whether you actually know more scripture than I, or have a better understanding of it than I is open to question.

Hardly since you don't have any Scriptures to back your "theory".

I do not think homosexuality in and of itself is evil or sinful.

Just the opposite of 1 Cor 6:9-11, 1 Tim 1:8 Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

I believe when Paul condemns 'homosexual offenders', he is talking about a much smaller more specific class of people than all those who would describe themselves as homosexual. I admit, I do not currently have any references to support this, but I have seen analysis in the past that supports this interpretation, based on the original language.

So this really isn't a debate. I am the only one debating. You
are throwing out guesses, unsubstainitated claims and opinions by your own confession. Come back when you can support you "theory" . . which of course will be never since it cannot be supported by Scripture.

[micatala]

Quote:
No, I would certainly not say you are evil for studying the scriptures. Whether you actually know more scripture than I, or have a better understanding of it than I is open to question.


Hardly since you don't have any Scriptures to back your "theory".

This is an unsubstantiated and incorrect assertion. Over the 3 threads we have been responding to each other on, I have given you multiple scriptures to support my points, and I have addressed many of your scriptural citations, offering perfectly reasonable alternative explanations.

I do not think homosexuality in and of itself is evil or sinful.


Just the opposite of 1 Cor 6:9-11

I would disagree. In the passage you cite, Paul says the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Note that a very similar passage occurs in Romans 1:18-32, but with further explanation. There, Paul links wickedness with Godlessness. He speaks of people who reject God, even though there is ample non-biblical evidence from 'what has been made' of God's invisible qualities. Paul is classifying these people as wicked principally because they have rejected God.

The sins that he subsequently lists are not the real reason that these people will not inherit the kingdom, but only acts that result from their rejection of God.

Consider drunkenness for example (as one of those listed). The Bible speaks against excessive drinking both in the Old and New Testament. Yet, drinking in and of itself is not evil. Paul even counsels Timothy to 'take a little wine,' and Jesus himself helps to provide wine to others at the wedding feast at Cana. I don't think He would do this if drinking was inherently sinful.

The key is whether the person is acting out of faith or not. In Romans chapter 14, Paul counsels believers concerning debatable matters, with the keeping of holy days and dietary practices serving as the immediate examples. Paul says which day one keeps holy, or whether a person eats meat or not is not the real issue. The real issue is whether the person is acting out of faith. If a person believes eating meat is sinful, and does it anyway, then he is not acting out of faith and so condemns himself. ANother may eat meat, in faith that there is nothing wrong in his doing this, and he is not sinning and, according to Paul, stands justified before God. FAITH is the key here. The theme of 'justification by faith' is also expounded on at length in the book of Hebrews and other books.

If a homosexual person is convinced in his own heart and before God that his beliefs and actions are not sinful, then I believe he will be justified before God. BUt, whether or not I am right is really irrelevant anyway, as scripture says that "it is to his own master that he will stand or fall, and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand."

I hold that it is a reasonable interpretation that homosexuality is only a sin if it is a result of a heart that is already turned away from God.

Remember, "All things are possible with God!"

So this really isn't a debate. I am the only one debating. You
are throwing out guesses, unsubstainitated claims and opinions by your own confession. Come back when you can support you "theory" . . which of course will be never since it cannot be supported by Scripture.

Another unsubstantiated assertion, IMHO. If your idea of debate is to make cryptic comments (note how many of the other responders have trouble even following what you are trying to say), quote a lot of scripture and assume that what you are trying to say is self-evident, and respond to other's comments with name-calling, insults, and evasions, then I suppose you are the only one debating here, at least accoring to your rules.

You seem to assume that since you cite scripture, your own opinion is not in evidence, but you forget that your interpretation of scripture is your opinion, just as much as anything esle you say. I have shared my opinions and tried to be clear to label them as such. This does not make my statements any less (or more) valid then yours or anybody else's.

I have shown you scripture to support my opinions. It seems you simply refuse to accept anyone else's citation or interpretation of scripture than your own.

BTW, I note that we are both well off-topic on this thread anyway, if that makes any difference at this point.

For what it is worth, I would say that you would be a more effective proponent for your position if you dropped the 'mocking tone.' Yes, I know you have said satire and sarcasm have biblical precedent, but it is worth noting that Jesus' dialogues were not a continual stream of sarcasm and insults. Prov. 9:12 "If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you; if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer."

[bernee51]

Yes, that would be "evil" that I have spent days, weeks, months, years studying the Scriptures so I might know something about the Scriptures more than you.

I would like once, just once, to hear from an erudite "True Christian" (TM) such as yourself, on what basis you believe this 'scripture' of yours to be anything other than a myth. And why is your myth (and your interpretation of it) any better than anyone else's (myth and interpretation thereof).

On what basis do you claim that the writings within your book of myths are applicable to all and sundry, regardless of their beliefs or otherwise?

Please note: to use biblical quotes to support the veracity of the bible is a circularity.

[Shamgar]

[quote="bernee51"On what basis do you claim that the writings within your book of myths are applicable to all and sundry, regardless of their beliefs or otherwise? Please note: to use biblical quotes to support the veracity of the bible is a circularity.[/quote]

I heard a myth that there were actually wise athiests. Yes, it was a myth.

Psalms 14: 1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.

[bernee51]

On what basis do you claim that the writings within your book of myths are applicable to all and sundry, regardless of their beliefs or otherwise? Please note: to use biblical quotes to support the veracity of the bible is a circularity.

I heard a myth that there were actually wise athiests. Yes, it was a myth.

Psalms 14: 1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.

Why do you avoid the question?
Do you not have enough confidence in your system of belief to defend it?
Are you concerned that once you honestly look at it with a critical eye it will tumble like the house of cards that it is?
Why do you resort so readily resort to ad hominems?

[Shamgar]

On what basis do you claim that the writings within your book of myths are applicable to all and sundry, regardless of their beliefs or otherwise? Please note: to use biblical quotes to support the veracity of the bible is a circularity.

I heard a myth that there were actually wise athiests. Yes, it was a myth.

Psalms 14: 1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.

Why do you avoid the question?
Do you not have enough confidence in your system of belief to defend it?
Are you concerned that once you honestly look at it with a critical eye it will tumble like the house of cards that it is?
Why do you resort so readily resort to ad hominems?

My common response to well poisoners.

In fact this is what a athiest site said about well poisoners



Quote from the athiest website:

“Certain criminally stupid elements of society like to pretend that a preemptive attack on the source of an assertion (or better yet, the entire group that leans that way) substitutes for having to listen, understand and form a cogent counter-argument. This is known as "poisoning the well." Only the truly mindless dullards will ever use it, but if and when they do, just point it out in catchy graphic form to the rest of the forum-goers. “

This is what the Scriptures say about well poisoners:

Prov 23: 9 Do not speak in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words.

Either source says to avoid to responding to you.