Ann Coulter's new book? Godless Liberals.

[1John2_26]

Quote:
ENIGMA wrote:
Did anyone ever get around to providing a question for debate?

Why would a liberal claim to be a Christian when their preaching, statements, beliefs and actions are contradicted by the Gospels and the letters of the New Testament?

[Grumpy]

Easyrider

Even if by chance your theory is true that God creates homosexuals (rather than abnormal chemical imbalances being at work in the mother's womb), he nevertheless prohibits gay sex relationships, as the Bible attests.

Have you missed, or just avoided the discussion about what the Bible actually says? The Bible DOES NOT condemn homosexuality as it is practiced by two adults today. My evidence for this has yet to be refuted(not even an attempt), so this statement of yours is just not yet proven or supported.

You do know about soap and water, don't you?


Yep, and so did God and the Israelites in the Desert, i.e.

Running water, yes. Soap, no. The Romans never had soap, they used oils and extremely hot water to cleanse themselves well into the 4th century. Many who have studied the times speculate that many of the restrictions of the OT have to do with foods(pork,shellfish,etc) that could easily cause food poisoning and trigonosis(a parasite) in the extreme heat of the area, thus were based on common sense as codified by the scriptures. The same can be said about the rules of Kosher.

Grumpy

[micatala]

Even if by chance your theory is true that God creates homosexuals (rather than abnormal chemical imbalances being at work in the mother's womb),

and who would be responsible for these chemical imbalances, other than God?

he nevertheless prohibits gay sex relationships, as the Bible attests.

Let's revisit the OP.

Why would a liberal claim to be a Christian when their preaching, statements, beliefs and actions are contradicted by the Gospels and the letters of the New Testament?

First off, notice that the OT is irrelevant to this thread. I know you believe Jesus is also the 'author' of the OT, but the thread is specifically referring to books of the NT.

Secondly, it seems to me the implication of your statement is that someone who does not consider homosexuality per se, or all homosexual acts per se, immoral is Godless, at least that is what I am interpreting in the context of the thread.

Now, the OP question makes some unsubstantiated assumptions, to whit, that liberal beliefs etc. are contradicted by the NT.

To be contradicted by the NT means, to me, that it is not possible to interpret the NT in any way to be consistent with the given statement.

Now, we can argue about what is the best interpretation, and may never come to an agreement. But it seems to me that ample evidence has been provided that it is possible to interpret the NT, taking into account the original language and even intent of the authors as much as it is discernable, in a way that allows that some homosexual acts are not immoral.

Yes, I would allow that one can interpret the NT in a different way and reach a different conclusion.

When there is a disagreement, each person weighs the arguments in their own heart, prays and examines their conscience, and comes to their own conclusion. In such cases, the Bible allows that two believers can disagree and both still be in right standing with God.

Thus, taking a 'liberal' interpretation of scripture does not mean taking a 'Godless' interpretation. Such assertions seem to me to be nothing more than trying to avoid discussion and put ones own views above all others through ad hominem tactics.

[Easyrider]

Have you missed, or just avoided the discussion about what the Bible actually says? The Bible DOES NOT condemn homosexuality as it is practiced by two adults today. My evidence for this has yet to be refuted(not even an attempt), so this statement of yours is just not yet proven or supported.

Your so-called evidence has been decimated by the Word of God ad nauseum by numerous posters in numerous posts.

[Cathar1950]

Easyrider:

Your so-called evidence has been decimated by the Word of God ad nauseum by numerous posters in numerous posts.

No it has not been decimated.
How are 6 or 7 passages that are the subject in question refutes his arguments? If you quote a passage and he say it means something besides what you are thinking and then you quote the passage again is not a refutation. If someone argues that you are missing what the condemnations and explanations are with another bible quote with the same problem is not decimation it is repetitive circular reasoning.

This is just more of that "we won" mentality due to your dismissing or ignoring arguments by repeating the same old interpreted bible lines.
In no way do we see that love between a man and a man described as it is today being directly addressed in the Bible.
The Sodom story is irrelevant because it is rape and domination not love being described and secondary to the story. Rap and domination is not the same thing as love between two people of the same sex. Doesn’t the bible often describe the love of God with his people be they Jews or Christians as the love between a husband and a bride. That would make all believers effeminate and all that goes wit it.

[Easyrider]

Easyrider:

Your so-called evidence has been decimated by the Word of God ad nauseum by numerous posters in numerous posts.

No it has not been decimated.
How are 6 or 7 passages that are the subject in question refutes his arguments? If you quote a passage and he say it means something besides what you are thinking and then you quote the passage again is not a refutation. If someone argues that you are missing what the condemnations and explanations are with another bible quote with the same problem is not decimation it is repetitive circular reasoning.

This is just more of that "we won" mentality due to your dismissing or ignoring arguments by repeating the same old interpreted bible lines.
In no way do we see that love between a man and a man described as it is today being directly addressed in the Bible.
The Sodom story is irrelevant because it is rape and domination not love being described and secondary to the story. Rap and domination is not the same thing as love between two people of the same sex. Doesn’t the bible often describe the love of God with his people be they Jews or Christians as the love between a husband and a bride. That would make all believers effeminate and all that goes wit it.

You are badly misinformed. Recommend you review the following information:

http://www.narth.com/docs/dallas.html


"Love does not rejoice in iniquity." - I Corinthians 13

[Grumpy]

Easyrider

You are badly misinformed. Recommend you review the following information:

Reviewed it. Colson agrees with you on every point and offers no more evidence than you do to refute my position.

You really must question an authors credibility if most of his references are from himself. This ios circular reasoning codified.

Both your and Colson OPINIONS are noted. Now see if you can come up with REASONS of your own why my interpretation of scripture is innaccurate(point by point).

Grumpy

[micatala]

Grumpy wrote:
Have you missed, or just avoided the discussion about what the Bible actually says? The Bible DOES NOT condemn homosexuality as it is practiced by two adults today. My evidence for this has yet to be refuted(not even an attempt), so this statement of yours is just not yet proven or supported.

Your so-called evidence has been decimated by the Word of God ad nauseum by numerous posters in numerous posts.

I have skimmed through the entire thread. Admittedly, I did this quickly and may have missed something, but I saw rather few references to scripture. Some of it was irrelevant to homosexuality. For example, 1John cited a passage from Luke relating to hell, trying to make the case that liberals who don't believe in hell are being unscriptural. Maybe this is true, but it is not relevant to the claim you are making.

None of the other citations of scripture in the text of the thread 'decimated' grumpy's position either.

Concerning your link http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html#Scriptural, this has been critiqued to some extent already.

With respect to the Sodom and Gommorah passages, I note that this cite allows the 'pro-gay' arguments (their term not mine) are partially true in many cases. It is clear from the passage that homosexuality was not the sole or even principle reason for Sodom's punishment. I think it is fair to say it was a symptom of the people being selfish, lovers of power and wealth, idolaters, and ungodly.

I will also point out that rape is often, if not always, more about displaying and exerting power than it is about sex. It is pretty clear that at least part of what the men of Sodom were up to outside of Lot's house had to do with exerting power, and not necessarily anything to do with satisfying their lust.

There is absolutely no way you can reasonably conclude from these passages that they would have suffered similar punishment only for homosexuality.

Far be it from decimating grumpy's point, this passage actually suggests nothing more than that homosexuality might be sinful if it is accompanied by a wicked, idolatrous heart. Notice that this is exactly consistent with Paul's discussion in Romans, where a whole host of sins, including a term that has been interpreted as implying homosexuality, are the result of idolatry and Godlessness.

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The bolded parts indicate that the passage is relevant to those who have consciously and explicitly rejected God and practiced idolatry.

Now, I am not claiming that your interpretation must be wrong and mine must be right. I am saying that a reasonable interpretation can be made of scripture that allows that homosexuality is not in and of itself immoral.

I will also point out, since those who make this interpretation are accused of being liberal, and the attempt has been made to discount this interpretation on this ad hominem basis, that many current standard and orthodox interpretations of scripture were once considered liberal and 'un-Biblical'. These inlude interpreting scripture to be consistent with COpernicanism, inconsistent with mass slavery, consistent with mixed race marriages, and even consistent with not following Jewish law.


This gives pretty compelling evidence that the accusation the liberals, however defined, are automatically godless is nothing more than empty rhetoric.


In addition, all this discussion applies only to believers. As has been mentioned, those who are not believers should not be expected to follow CHristian or Biblical precepts unless a clear and compelling non-religious rationale is present.

[Easyrider]

There is absolutely no way you can reasonably conclude from these passages that they would have suffered similar punishment only for homosexuality.

Who said anything about homosexual sin as being their ONLY sin? I never claimed that. But it obviously was ONE of their sins.

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The bolded parts indicate that the passage is relevant to those who have consciously and explicitly rejected God and practiced idolatry.

I think the passage below that you quote above is very clear on the subject.

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1. Men abandoned "natural relations with women." So then, mem with men is unnatural.
2. Men were inflamed with LUST for one another, obviously indicating sexual pleasure.
3. They received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

If this were on a 5th grade reading comprehension test it would be extremely hard to say gay sex was "okay."

As has been mentioned, those who are not believers should not be expected to follow CHristian or Biblical precepts unless a clear and compelling non-religious rationale is present.

I don't think even God expects unbiblical sinners to follow his precepts. But he will hold them accountable in the end for any godlessness on their part, whether they believe that or not. God is not going away. He'll be there on "the other side." I strongly recommend people seek his mercy and salvation through Jesus Christ.

[micatala]

I think the passage below that you quote above is very clear on the subject.

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1. Men abandoned "natural relations with women." So then, mem with men is unnatural.
2. Men were inflamed with LUST for one another, obviously indicating sexual pleasure.
3. They received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

If this were on a 5th grade reading comprehension test it would be extremely hard to say gay sex was "okay."

n the fifth grade, maybe that is how one would read it. If one does a little more investigation of the context, it is not so obvious.

I would agree, being inflamed by lust would be immoral. This would be true regardless of whether it was heterosexual or not.

The Bible is full of passages in which the obvious context is not the correct one. Look at John chapter 6 for an example.

[1John2_26]

Easyrider

Quote:
Even if by chance your theory is true that God creates homosexuals (rather than abnormal chemical imbalances being at work in the mother's womb), he nevertheless prohibits gay sex relationships, as the Bible attests.

Grumpy wrote:
Have you missed, or just avoided the discussion about what the Bible actually says? The Bible DOES NOT condemn homosexuality as it is practiced by two adults today. My evidence for this has yet to be refuted(not even an attempt), so this statement of yours is just not yet proven or supported.

I have refuted every attempt of yours to foster this allegation (or wishful thinking) in every thread you have attemted to do so. Decimated.

Just for the record.

Micatal wrote:
I have skimmed through the entire thread. Admittedly, I did this quickly and may have missed something, but I saw rather few references to scripture. Some of it was irrelevant to homosexuality. For example, 1John cited a passage from Luke relating to hell, trying to make the case that liberals who don't believe in hell are being unscriptural. Maybe this is true, but it is not relevant to the claim you are making.

But relevant to liberals being godless.