1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

U.C.C. Endorses Gay Marriage

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Frapp, Jul 4, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Many conservative churches admit the KJV isn't perfect, but still stand by the KJV even so, taking the stance that despite the translation errors, its the best translation out there.

    http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html
     
  2. Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    I never said that I never commit the same sin twice. What I was saying is that God wants us to recognize our sins and try to live a more righteous life without sinning. This is not possible because we are all fallen creatures, but to tell God that I am committing a sin on a day to day basis and because I am fallen I will just except that and expect God to do the same is a poor attitude for a Christian to have. God saves us by His grace (something that is given that is not deserved), but as people who love God, we should work as hard as possible everyday to minimize sin in our lives. Not accept it because it is our nature.
     
  3. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Roger, are you speaking of any UCC pastor in particular? Your rant is particularly rediculous, because most ministers go to seminary so that they can GET ORDAINED.

    We are all sinners and need to repent. We need to read His Word on our own and the best English version is the KJV not newer copyrighted versions. Who in the hell has the balls to change the Bible and then copyright it for profit? Woe unto you. KJV is not perfect but with that and A Strong’s you’ll be a hell of a lot better off than listening to a false prophet teaching from a copyrighted piece of crap.[/QUOTE]
    The KJV is a beautiful translation, very poetic. However, as far as a translation used for study, you can do far better. "Change the Bible"? We've been over this many times before. EVERY translator has to make decisions about word choice and phrasing. Just because the KJV was translated hundreds of years ago doesn't mean they made better choices than translators today. Especially since they were translating from the Latin translation of the Greek and Hebrew, not from the Greek and Hebrew directly. Any book hundreds of years old is in the public domain. If it were translated today you can bet it would be copywrit ed. It takes years and resources to do a proper translation, not to mention the notes and other help in many modern Bibles. Those who devoted their lives to a project designed to help people understand God's message deserve to be compensated. "Don't muzzle the ox who treads the grain."
     
  4. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Its not a "perfect" rendering. But, as the article points out, the "errors" are subtile and really do not change the overall meaning. A poor choice of preposition (at least for us - it may have made perfect sence back in 1611), a couple of verbs with different tense ("ask" as apposed to "keep asking" implying persistence). My main objection to the KJV is the archaic language. One has to stop and think about all the thees and thous. Personnally, I like the New King James version - retains a lot of the literary style of the KJV (psalms for example, read better) but brings the language up to a more modern reading. But, I don't rely on NKJV only, but look through many translations to better understand the text.

    But back to the subject line of this thread, I have not found one that says same gender sex is anything other than sin. And it says it in pretty plain and simple language - in Leviticus and Romans, among other places - Old Testiment and New Testiment. And arguments that some words were translated wrong, do not hold water- either on the specific point nor in light of the overall reading of the Word. And no it doesn't dwell on the sin of homosexuality in great detail. Perhaps it wasn't all that common to need that much commentary, after all the basic precept is fairly easy to understand: Sex was created by God for enjoyment and procreation between a Husband (male) and Wife (female). Keep it in balance in this way and things work remarkably well. Get it out of balance (perversions), and reap the consequences.

    Again, we are not talking dancing, occasional drink of alcoholic beverage (drunkedness is spoken against), eating pork, ... If one can find an instance in the Bible where dancing or having a ham sandwich invited the death penalty, you might have an argument - but its not there.

    In the secular sense, we could argue this issue for quite some time. The issue at hand is, should a "church" support something God calls sin. Yes, we are to love the sinner, be accepting of the person (not the sin), and yes the church typically has not done a good job in this area during that past several decades. But we also have a responsibility to speak to those issues which bring peril to the sinner. And in a democracy like ours, to let our voices be heard so that laws reflect Biblical truths -- and in this case, it means opposing same-gender "marriage".

    In Ezekiel 33, God is telling Ezekiel the prophet (but I think indirectly, telling all in ministry), a rather stern warning:

    -- and in the apostle's own KJV too :)
     
  5. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    I have not found one that says same gender sex is anything other than sin.

    Personally I agree with you.

    Bogy and others can twist the verses all they want, but in my opinion the very human writers of the Bible had the same sexual hangups that people today do, and DID in fact intend to condemn homosexuality strongly.

    Just one of many reasons why I don't consider the Bible an "absolute" moral guide, because on this issue its simply wrong.
     
  6. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,838
    186
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Danny, you omitted the "IMHO"
     
  7. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    My denomination does not support rape, pedophilia, or abusing slaves, just as the Bible commands regarding both homosexual and heterosexual acts.
     
  8. cdru

    cdru Hall Of Fame

    2,517
    0
    Dec 4, 2003
    The ancestors to my denomiation felt that way going back to 1708. My specific denomination, Church of the Brethren, wasn't officially organized until around 1908. There have been various offshoots from the "mainstream" brethren over the years but it's typically acknowledged that the Church of the Brethren is the "original" present-day Brethren church. Many sister denominations, such as Quakers, Mennonites, and Dunkards have similar beliefs to varying degrees.

    Yes. Exactly. The offical statement of war can be found here. Relevent lines are:
    Our understanding of the life and the teachings of Christ as revealed in the New Testament led our Annual Conference to state in 1785 that we should not "submit to the higher powers so as to make ourselves their instruments to shed human blood." In 1918 at our Annual Conference we stated that "we believe that war or any participation in war is wrong and incompatible with the spirit, example and teachings of Jesus Christ." Again in 1934 Annual Conference resolved that all war is sin. We, therefore, cannot encourage, engage in, or willingly profit from armed conflict at home or abroad. We cannot, in the event of war, accept military service or support the military machine in any capacity."

    Basically, any war, for whatever reason, is bad. Ideally our goal is to peacefully resolve all conflicts. Yeah we live in an idealistic world that probably won't exist. So there isn't anything as a "just" war. That doesn't necessarily mean that we are oppose to conflict, just peaceful conflict and non-conformance. Think hippies, lock-ins, and "make love, not war" just without the sex. :)

    It's also worth noting that people within the Church follow the offical viewpoint with a varying degree of acceptance. The church's trust invests in accordance to the view by not investing in companies that directly or indirectly support a war. Quite a few, like my father, either were CO during times of war or would be if they had been called up. Some take the stance that even paying taxes at the federal level is against their belief and either don't pay the tax, use creative means to eliminate the tax, or purposfully make insufficient income to require paying taxes. Others view war is bad, but may still "support" the war in other ways like paying taxes or working for a company that is somewhat war related. My mother is in this group as she works for ITT in the devision that does military communication electronics. Finally, there are still those that pretty much ignore the whole concept. My bother, who is currently stationed in Baghdad is in that group.

    Indeed. Unfortunately more people are not of like minds.
     
  9. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    I guess that is the hard part - application. In a sense we all "support" war when our country wages it, either through taxes, work for companies that make military hardware, even through 401K investments which could include defense contractors. Perhaps even CO status - as I think a CO who is called up to military service still serves in the conflict, just as a non-combatant. But certainly the position has Biblical merit. A pastor friend of mine and I have had long talks about how the scripture would appear not to side with the revolutionists who went to war to throw off the British rule a little over 200 years ago, nor with civil war -- both of which would otherwise appear to be "just" wars. I can't say yet that I agree with the position, but I really have no scriptural basis to disagree. I think governments have God-given authority to wage war and implement the death penalty, in order to protect its citizens. But as a believer, I'm not sure we are called to be a party to that. Many parts of the Bible I believe are clear - but its the application which is difficult and sometimes painful. Like Jesus's statement (from the "turn the other cheek" passages) about giving someone our shirt if he takes our coat. We are definitly called to be peacemakers, individually (beginning on a personal level, individual to individual, which may be the hardest level to start at now that I think about it).

    On the grander scale, it seems I recall reading somewhere about one or two mutual funds, who guide their investiments according to things they believe honor Jesus - including not investing in war. I can't remember the fund names now.
     
  10. cdru

    cdru Hall Of Fame

    2,517
    0
    Dec 4, 2003
    There are different classifications for CO depending on beliefs. Some people chose to take a non-combative role, say doing laundry or mess duty. Others, like my father during Vietnam, when through Alternative Service. He was essentially an orderly at a nursing home during is "tour of duty" when he was drafted into service. He still served a useful function for his country, wasn't helping the war effort unless you really wanted to stretch a viewpoint, and he wasn't just let go free to do whatever he wanted.
     
  11. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Danny, you omitted the "IMHO"

    I thought conservatives believed in absolute morality. No reason I can't as well. Thus if its wrong, it doesn't matter if its my opinion or not. It will be wrong in any case. ;)

    On the subject of IMHO's, I fail to see the need for them. An intelligent audience should be able to clearly distinguish fact from opinion by the context. Its thus a redundant addition only necessary if there is a lack of context indicating the source of a statement.
     
  12. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    I think you misunderstand that point. Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that only a few go to heaven and the rest are screwed, they believe 144,000 go to heaven as a ruling class and the rest will stay on earth living forever in perfection.
     
  13. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    Yes, what's so BAAA-AAAA-AAA-AD about bestiality? :lol:
     
  14. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    Of course they can! It's either BAAAA-AAA-EEEESSSS or BAAAA-UUUUGGEEERRR-OFF. :lol:
     
  15. ntexasdude

    ntexasdude Hall Of Fame

    2,684
    0
    Jan 23, 2005
    I think JW's believe the 144,000 are already in heaven and they are the 12 tribes of Israel. The ones who get saved by the JW faith will live on earth in paradise and the ones who aren't saved will cease to exist. They don't beleive in Hell and eternal damnation. They also predicted Jesus would return sometime around 1900. When he didn't show up they made up a story about how he returned invisibly and now lives in a building in Brooklyn, NY. JW's use their own Bible translation called New World Translation or NWT.

    I'm not making fun of or bashing JW's but this is the gist of their beliefs according to a book I read a few years ago.
     
  16. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    Just a nitpick. The actual translation is "You must not murder". "Kill" is a mistranslation. More accurate translations and the original Hebrew agree on that one.
     
  17. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    No, they don't believe they are the 12 tribes. They believe most are in heaven, but some still are alive today. Those who are going have a special calling.

    True.

    Also true.

    Not true. They believe that Jesus returned in an invisible presence in 1914 after casting Satan and the demons down to earth, signifying the beginning of the last days. At the end of the last days, he will initiate the war of Armegeddon, where his presence will be visible to all. Nowhere was it ever said that he "lives" in a building in Brooklyn.

    There's nothing special about the NWT, except that it's a modern english translation that returned the Name of God to it's rightful place where many previous translations had removed it.

    Was it a book by JWs explaining their doctorines, or a book by a detractor talking smack?
     
  18. ntexasdude

    ntexasdude Hall Of Fame

    2,684
    0
    Jan 23, 2005
    I think most do believe he lives invisibly at the JW headquarters in Brooklyn. I have driven by that particular building many times while on business up there. I could be wrong though. I'm not JW but I know one family who is devout JW. I'll ask him.



    There are subtle differences. The most glaring is found in the first verse of the New Testament. KJ reads "In the beginning there was God" with God capitalized. The NWT reads "In the beginning there was a god". Note the difference.



    The later. I bought it at a Christian bookstore. :D
     
  19. n8dagr8

    n8dagr8 Resident Rounder DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,837
    0
    Aug 14, 2004
    so wrong! :lol:
     
  20. n8dagr8

    n8dagr8 Resident Rounder DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,837
    0
    Aug 14, 2004
    Yeah, I heard it was Queens. :D

    Seriously though, you a JW, Tyralak?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page