Osteen says being a Homo is a Sin

[Selah]

[quote=survivalminister;4111893]

Originally Posted by Selah

You are the one who claimed to be supported in your beliefs by "good conservative upright biblical scholars" so all we are asking is for your list of who they are. You don't need our definition for that.

.

Since you are the one who claimed to be validated by what you described as "good conservative upright biblical scholars" the onus is on you to tell us what your definition of that is and who it is you see as such who are in your corner. But I see asking for us to define it so you can rebuff is a way of getting around answering that question. So, strike one on answering the first question fully.

Never heard of them. Not surprising if you've not dealt with biblical scholarship before. They are big in their areas especially for evangelical audiences.

So now you insult me in order to lift yourself up as the definitive authority on biblical scholarship? Strike two in avoiding answering the second question with validating your list of three unheard of men who you claim validate your version of Christianity.

You have put yourself in a position as a leader of a flock in God's name.
If you don't have any truths about leading them in the truth of salvation then you need to step down. All we are asking for is what is your basis and foundation for that truth? Earlier in this thread you said we were all just guessing. I explained that there is no need to guess when we accept God's word as infallible. So what is your basis of authority? We see the bible as one of our resources not the only one. For some it is a primary sources of revelation. Our tradition is that we each have to come to our own understanding and wrestling with the bible. Reason, Revelation, Faith, and the Bible are some of the tools we use. They aren't to be used separate from one another but together as tools.

For me, I've found that my faith and my scholarship allow me to have an ongoing dialogue with the text. To figure out what it meant to the people that were hearing, then writing it down. I find it also helps to understand the cultural and historical arenas that produced these book.

For clarification, are you telling me that there is no absolute truth but it is relative for each reader to come to their own conclusions and follow that path? What do you call this belief system? Based on what I am reading and what I know of various belief systems, it sounds like it fits into New Age Relativism. And who decides which books are added in as resources? Do people get to choose their own or is their some authority group who have decided and are leaders? I am not saying that to be argumentative but I am truly trying to understand how you decide you end up with "this is truth" and "this is not." So far, your answers evade the question.

You keep telling us we are all wrong and you are right. What is your special access to knowing what is and isn't truth that we don't seem to have, according to your view. In other words, what measure do you use that "this is truth" and "this is not"? I'm not telling you you are wrong. What I do bring to the table is stuff from a scholarly perspective. I happen to think when the bible says same-sex things are not good that is what the writers meant. However, like many other things I don't take that aspect of it seriously. Ancient writers, different cultural contexts. My perspective comes from the fact I'm also a biblical scholar so my perspective may be somewhat different. And just as a person of faith. Although anyone can pick up an intro guide to biblical studies.

Yes, you do tell us we are wrong when we say the Bible is infallible. You are about to start a thread to completely discredit the Bible except for the parts you like and have garnered enough other humans who will agree with you and embrace some things and reject others to come to that conclusion. I would say that is telling us we are wrong. Please do not patronize me with condescending answers. It is disrespectful.

Then, again, how do you determine what is and isn't truth and what absolutes you can teach others that you can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not leading them straight to hell? We've don't tend to believe in a hell as that idea is a much later idea within Judaism. It cam about after a exposure to the Persians and the basic question during the revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes--what do you do about evil

On one hand you claim that the Bible is skewed in what is and is not included and was not kept pure and yet you don't have a problem embracing other writings as THE definitive truth as in the origination of the idea of hell. Don't you see how you simply have exchanged one authority for another to fit your chosen belief system? There is more validation that the Bible has been preserved perfectly than there is the writings that you accept as "truth."

Basically, you have just picked and chosen from various writers to put together a religion that meets your needs and ideals. That is your choice to do so but why do you call if Christianity? My faith is pretty coherent to me. I've given a couple sketches of various aspects on the board, but not all. I'm a Christian because I follow Christ. Christian means "little Christs." And I see in the HB reflections of a God that cuts right to the heart of the matter. "He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God. That is what my God requires.

Considering you state that you study Biblical scholars, I am surprised that you have embraced the lie that the term Christian means "little Christs" because it does not, at least not in the way in which it is often defined.
A Christian means to follow Christ. The word Christ means messiah, correct?
We are not little messiahs. There is only one. When we die to self and are born again, He indwells us and we live through Him but we do not become a "little Christ."

Yes, to follow Him means to love one another. It also means to share one another's burdens and lift each other up and counsel and help each other. To that end, for you to teach that a sin is not really a sin (homosexuality) is in direct contrast to the love issue. It is a destructive lifestyle evidenced by the fact that God does not bless the union EVER with procreation of the two individuals. Setting aside that infertility happens with men and women unions but that is a different issue because it is more rare than the rule. In homosexual unions, the inability to procreate without a third part is a problem 100% of the time.

It is as much a sin as alcoholism and adultery. The very fact that you have to discredit the Bible as you are passionate about doing, taking the writings of who knows who throughout the ages to help you do that, should be a big red flag for you. All you are doing is creating a designer religion. There must be an authority for truth and there are absolutes. The moment you toss the Bible aside as discredited you are in the middle of the ocean with no map, an overcast sky, and now oars or motor.

Is alcoholism a sin? Is adultery a sin? If the answer to that question in your mind is yes then what is your criteria for agreeing that it is?

One more time: How do you decide what is true and what is not true? Where does the buck stop if you go to multiple sources? Jesus said we need to be very careful not to be deceived. He also said that there will be many who will claim to have done miracles in His name but He will tell them He never knew them.

How do you know that you are following truth or if you are deceived? Your eternity, and the ones you preach to, depend on it.
That is pretty serious business. That is why believing that God did preserve His word to us and can and does teach those who sincerely seek Him through it puts all the responsibility on God and not on us to pick and choose what tickles our ears and sounds good to us.

[ViamFec]

He can say whatever he wants. That's what is great about Freedom. The key is to not forcefully intrude our own opinions on the freedoms of others - ie enact laws etc

http://www.naturalnews.com/035478_fr...hilosophy.html

[Selah]

Originally Posted by ViamFec

He can say whatever he wants. That's what is great about Freedom. The key is to not forcefully intrude our own opinions on the freedoms of others - ie enact laws etc

http://www.naturalnews.com/035478_fr...hilosophy.html

I'm not sure who you are referring to but SM is a she, not a he and she is a practicing homosexual who teaches others that the Bible is just hodgepodge and she has studied and pulled together the "truth."

We are having a discussion to try to discover what her criteria is for deciding what is and is not truth.

[survivalminister]

[quote=Selah;4112062]

Originally Posted by survivalminister

Since you are the one who claimed to be validated by what you described as "good conservative upright biblical scholars" the onus is on you to tell us what your definition of that is and who it is you see as such who are in your corner. But I see asking for us to define it so you can rebuff is a way of getting around answering that question. So, strike one on answering the first question fully.



So now you insult me in order to lift yourself up as the definitive authority on biblical scholarship? Strike two in avoiding answering the second question with validating your list of three unheard of men who you claim validate your version of Christianity.I think I'm stating a fact. If you aren't in the field or if you don't keep up on evangelical apologetics you probably aren't aware of those names. It's the same thing in any field. I wouldn't know the names of people in a lot of science fields.



For clarification, are you telling me that there is no absolute truth but it is relative for each reader to come to their own conclusions and follow that path? What do you call this belief system? Based on what I am reading and what I know of various belief systems, it sounds like it fits into New Age Relativism. And who decides which books are added in as resources? Do people get to choose their own or is their some authority group who have decided and are leaders? I am not saying that to be argumentative but I am truly trying to understand how you decide you end up with "this is truth" and "this is not." So far, your answers evade the question. People have to come to their own understanding of issues. My denomination uses the old slogan in essentials unity, in non-essentials charity, in all things love. Of course what are essential depends upon the community of faith and such



Yes, you do tell us we are wrong when we say the Bible is infallible. You are about to start a thread to completely discredit the Bible except for the parts you like and have garnered enough other humans who will agree with you and embrace some things and reject others to come to that conclusion. I would say that is telling us we are wrong. Please do not patronize me with condescending answers. It is disrespectful. Now you're the one assigning motivations and emotions to what I'm saying. It comes different points of view.


On one hand you claim that the Bible is skewed in what is and is not included and was not kept pure and yet you don't have a problem embracing other writings as THE definitive truth as in the origination of the idea of hell. Don't you see how you simply have exchanged one authority for another to fit your chosen belief system? There is more validation that the Bible has been preserved perfectly than there is the writings that you accept as "truth." Yes, truth as in true for me and others in said communities



Considering you state that you study Biblical scholars, I am surprised that you have embraced the lie that the term Christian means "little Christs" because it does not, at least not in the way in which it is often defined.
A Christian means to follow Christ. The word Christ means messiah, correct?
We are not little messiahs. There is only one. When we die to self and are born again, He indwells us and we live through Him but we do not become a "little Christ." This would be your theological interpolation. Which is one view of many historically and currently. Messiah simply means anointed one. In Israel anointed\messiah was used in reference to kings, prophets, etc. and there eventually evolved the idea of a universal Messiah (the identity and characteristics of said Messiah depended on the time period. Some thought two separate Messiahs would come.

Yes, to follow Him means to love one another. It also means to share one another's burdens and lift each other up and counsel and help each other. To that end, for you to teach that a sin is not really a sin (homosexuality) is in direct contrast to the love issue. It is a destructive lifestyle evidenced by the fact that God does not bless the union EVER with procreation of the two individuals. Setting aside that infertility happens with men and women unions but that is a different issue because it is more rare than the rule. In homosexual unions, the inability to procreate without a third part is a problem 100% of the time. That's your view and I respect it. I just happen to disagree

It is as much a sin as alcoholism and adultery. The very fact that you have to discredit the Bible as you are passionate about doing, taking the writings of who knows who throughout the ages to help you do that, should be a big red flag for you. All you are doing is creating a designer religion. There must be an authority for truth and there are absolutes. The moment you toss the Bible aside as discredited you are in the middle of the ocean with no map, an overcast sky, and now oars or motor.

Is alcoholism a sin? Is adultery a sin? If the answer to that question in your mind is yes then what is your criteria for agreeing that it is?

One more time: How do you decide what is true and what is not true? Where does the buck stop if you go to multiple sources? Jesus said we need to be very careful not to be deceived. He also said that there will be many who will claim to have done miracles in His name but He will tell them He never knew them. Truth is culturally conditioned. Not that we can't agree on certain tenets of ethics. But the truth of the Bible was dependent and still is upon the communities that produced the books and fragments that later became canonized. And of course the various communities around the world and here in the US that have different views and interpretations. For you that means it is infallible and my view is just out there. We have two interpretations right there

How do you know that you are following truth or if you are deceived? Your eternity, and the ones you preach to, depend on it. Well given that my view faith as a journey. This doesn't particularly bother me.
That is pretty serious business. That is why believing that God did preserve His word to us and can and does teach those who sincerely seek Him through it puts all the responsibility on God and not on us to pick and choose what tickles our ears and sounds good to us.

Personally, I love the bible because it offers such divergent view points, contradictory images, some nasty stuff, some beautiful stuff. I love the bible. I just don't it literally. And I certainly think it should be put up to the same standards and rigors as other ancient texts.

[survivalminister]

Originally Posted by Selah

I'm not sure who you are referring to but SM is a she, not a he and she is a practicing homosexual who teaches others that the Bible is just hodgepodge and she has studied and pulled together the "truth."

We are having a discussion to try to discover what her criteria is for deciding what is and is not truth.

Rather, that would be your interpretation and conclusions based on a few hundred posts here. I've gone into my personal views a bit, but certainly not how I interact with my congregations.

[Doc_Shane]

MOD EDIT- I have started cleaning this thread as reported, stay on topic lay off the personal barbs, and trolling.

Next stop is the trash can for this if it gets off track again, I am not going to go through 20+ pages to clean it again.

[Icesplitter]

For real. You are all worried about the genetic defect that has been propogated, idolized, and brought to the fore like it is something to be proud of. NOT. It just needs to be done. And, it will be as nature, and the rhythm of life that has been decreed by the Lord Almighty, weeded out, as intended.

[reverendg]

Originally Posted by Icesplitter

For real. You are all worried about the genetic defect that has been propogated, idolized, and brought to the fore like it is something to be proud of. NOT. It just needs to be done. And, it will be as nature, and the rhythm of life that has been decreed by the Lord Almighty, weeded out, as intended.

No genetic basis for such behavior has ever been found, despite much research.....and studies based on identical twins also discredit any genetic link to such a preference.

[Lone Star]

Originally Posted by survivalminister

Hey, if that is handy for you to think of me like that go for it.

Personally I think you are probably a nice person....I cannot see faith in any or your biblical scholarship discussions....in fact...It seems to me that it is more of an anti-faith and anti scholarship both at the same time......In your case it appears to be a tool to deal with something you do not want to be a sin but mainstream Christianity disagrees with.

What I see is denial of Christianity to gain acceptance rather than forgiveness and redemption.

Obviously you disagree with my assessment of what I a reading in your posts and you disagree. However I intend my criticism of the motives in what you describe as "Biblical Scholarship" to be constructive.......Self reflection of your true motives dose not hurt and you seem to be challenging me a bit too.

As long as we both walk away with the idea that the conversation forwards our understanding of Christianity...I think we both win.

I cannot say I am 100% correct however I believe I am on the correct path.

[esheldon]

Originally Posted by Doc_Shane

MOD EDIT- I have started cleaning this thread as reported, stay on topic lay off the personal barbs, and trolling.

Next stop is the trash can for this if it gets off track again, I am not going to go through 20+ pages to clean it again.

Were you a corpsman, 18D, or PJ?

[Lone Star]

Originally Posted by survivalminister

Rather, that would be your interpretation and conclusions based on a few hundred posts here. I've gone into my personal views a bit, but certainly not how I interact with my congregations.

The obvious question here, which I have assumed but not heard directly from you, is:

What do you tell your congregations about sin and the homosexual lifestyle?

What do you tell them about redemption of sins?

I could go on with a long list of other things that the title of this thread does not cover but the post would be long and tedious. I also want to limit the questions so they may have a better chance of being answered in as concise a manner as possible.

I know just these 2 questions questions is a tall order I have visited churches 2 to 3 times and had discussions with pastors during the week before I could judge if the Pastor has an understanding of the bible from which I can learn.....I have learned a lot from you but not much about the bible or Christ.

[survivalminister]

Originally Posted by Icesplitter

For real. You are all worried about the genetic defect that has been propogated, idolized, and brought to the fore like it is something to be proud of. NOT. It just needs to be done. And, it will be as nature, and the rhythm of life that has been decreed by the Lord Almighty, weeded out, as intended.

Well, as I've said elsewhere. My being gay is neither a curse or a blessing, an abomination or a defect. It is what it is and I love I love.

[survivalminister]

Originally Posted by Lone Star

Personally I think you are probably a nice person....I cannot see faith in any or your biblical scholarship discussions....in fact...It seems to me that it is more of an anti-faith and anti scholarship both at the same time......In your case it appears to be a tool to deal with something you do not want to be a sin but mainstream Christianity disagrees with.

What I see is denial of Christianity to gain acceptance rather than forgiveness and redemption.

Obviously you disagree with my assessment of what I a reading in your posts and you disagree. However I intend my criticism of the motives in what you describe as "Biblical Scholarship" to be constructive.......Self reflection of your true motives dose not hurt and you seem to be challenging me a bit too.

As long as we both walk away with the idea that the conversation forwards our understanding of Christianity...I think we both win.

I cannot say I am 100% correct however I believe I am on the correct path.

I generally don't have a problem when we disagree. We're both honest about our views and you've never been nasty with me. We've gotten testy in a few threads I think--but that comes with discussion. You seem to be a pretty down-to-earth person and we just have vastly different views on this stuff.

[survivalminister]

Originally Posted by Lone Star

The obvious question here, which I have assumed but not heard directly from you, is:

What do you tell your congregations about sin and the homosexual lifestyle?

What do you tell them about redemption of sins?

I could go on with a long list of other things that the title of this thread does not cover but the post would be long and tedious. I also want to limit the questions so they may have a better chance of being answered in as concise a manner as possible.

I know just these 2 questions questions is a tall order I have visited churches 2 to 3 times and had discussions with pastors during the week before I could judge if the Pastor has an understanding of the bible from which I can learn.....I have learned a lot from you but not much about the bible or Christ.

The homosexuality one is easier to answer. It doesn't come up often in my two congregations because most all of the members there don't see it as an issue. Some explain those passages away. Others believe that if Paul and the ancients could've conceived of loving same-sex relationship the passages wouldn't be there.

My own view (and that of some members) is kind of a combination, that those passages were written in particular historical contexts and communities and part of larger conversations going on. For example, Paul wasn't the only one to link various pagan sexual practices with "immorality" including same-sex behavior. Philo and other Hellenistic Jews did as well. So, I think Paul was condemning same-sex behavior in those communities (and remember the Pauline epistles are a one-side conversation. We never see community's side of things).

In the Roman world the predominant same-sex relationships were between men. It was about domination. The "relations" (intercourse) weren't frowned upon unless you were the one being penetrated. For example: a slave could never "penetrate" his master etc. You also see this in Roman taboos about women being on top during sex etc. So I do think Paul was talking about same-sex relations as he understood them probably in relation to mystery cults (that we just don't know). I just don't think that part is relevant for modern Christianity. People will still find it a slippery argument I'm making.

However, I can't be a biblical scholar and go along with some of the more convoluted attempts to interpret around the passages.

As for your sin question. I'll answer that tomorrow. That one--is far more complex (if you can believe that)!

[dontbuypotteryfromme]

Originally Posted by Lone Star

One of them is correct the other is full of mud.

I believe Selah is correct and Survivalminister is full if mud.

The bible is not difficult to understand but for many it is difficult to accept.

See I still hold the bible is difficult to understand. from what I have seen it take real work to do so.

[dontbuypotteryfromme]

Originally Posted by SkullyWV

Yes but gauge of morality is dropping daily.

I don't think. We gain on the swings what we loose on the merry go rounds.

[dontbuypotteryfromme]

Originally Posted by Lone Star

You probably need to see a doctor about that red flags are a sure sign of Bull****itis.....a dangerous condition if left unabated.

you want to watch that anger it is sinfull. Not really sinfull though so we will just ignore it.

So is the king james version right or wrong. what does it say about killing?

Why do we ignore one translation for another?

[dontbuypotteryfromme]

Originally Posted by Lone Star

Nope you are just a difficult learner. Reading comprehension is something I noticed you have a problem with another is assuming facts not in evidence such as the Bravo Sierra (BS) about scholars and theologians having these difficulties.

I will get a copy of the new new testement when you write it. Should be a good read.

Picked at random

g/booklet/transforming-your-life-process-conversion/holy-spirit-gods-transforming-power/why-cant-theol/

Resolve that one for us would you?

(And you know what? I bet you actually do.)

[Selah]

Originally Posted by dontbuypotteryfromme

See I still hold the bible is difficult to understand. from what I have seen it take real work to do so.

Perhaps I missed your response but yesterday you challenged those of us who hold the Bible as infallible to explain how we do so and I gave you my explanation.

I surmised from the start that you would not accept my explanation as a game changer for you but I think since you were not happy with the lack of response from those of us who had not seen your question until you reposted it, that you would at least offer a reasoned response to my attempt.

Again, if you simply missed it then let me provide you with what I said here again:

Originally Posted by dontbuypotteryfromme

Why do either of you think you have the bible right?

I asked this one before and got a big fat egg as a response.

I didn't see your question earlier but I will try to answer you albeit I realize that for you my answer may not seem sufficient but it is my answer.

I was someone who thought the Bible couldn't possibly be infallible. After all, so much of it didn't make sense and made me very uncomfortable.

Fast forward to after I read it asking Him to teach me and show me if it is His word, if He was real.

It was miraculous. I was stunned by what was revealed that I had never seen before. I also saw a thread of consistency and undercurrent of a message that was so perfect and so deep that it could only have been written by the creator.

Then, I listened to Chuck Missler in his two series: 24 hours through the Bible and 24 hours through Genesis. He has an amazing ability to give us the bigger picture and then the nuggets of evidence pointing to that bigger picture within the pages.

The Bible is written in such a way that it has plenty of apparent fodder for those seeking to dismiss the very idea of its message and they can walk away feeling justified for their take on it. I sincerely believe that was planned that way for those who were just seeking to reject God or His will from the start.

Then, for the seeker, the one who must know the truth no matter what that might be and seek Him with all their heart before they dismiss it as mere fodder, it is an amazing love story that makes perfect sense and everything fits together perfectly. Those things that don't seem to fit together are just future things to unveil another nugget in the future. They don't bother me anymore at all.

And we haven't even talked about all the science that is embedded in it that could not possibly have been known by the writers at the time as well as all the prophecy that has come to pass, even in our headlines today, it is icing on the cake that there is no doubt that it is God's word.

It takes faith too but once that faith is rightly placed, He reveals Himself in a way that you have no doubt that He is not a figment of your imagination.

So looking at the Bible, how would I pick and choose what is and is not inspired? The series by Chuck Missler on How we got our Bible is also very interesting and helped me to settle that it was not my place to pick and choose but to be patient as God explained it to me as I grew in knowing Him and His word more intimately.

http://www.survivalistboards.com/sho...&postcount=436

[Selah]

Originally Posted by reverendg

No genetic basis for such behavior has ever been found, despite much research.....and studies based on identical twins also discredit any genetic link to such a preference.

I am not sure they fully understand it enough to be able to fully come to that conclusion since they only have partial DNA actually mapped, based on my current understanding. We do know that if it does exist then it blows the whole evolution theory out the window. Which leave us with our creator and He says it is a curse, not a blessing.

I think that there are physiological reasons and there are environmental reasons.
A child's psyche is so fragile that if abused or treated perversely (with memory of the incident in tact or not), depending on the age of their development, it may mar their sexual identity quite severely.

Environmentally, I believe seeing this behavior among animals (which means they will not procreate which means they will not pass down their own genes into the gene pool) that there are environmental effects that are causing some of the problems too. One possible reason may be, my understanding is that Birth control pills, which carry a heavy dose of hormones in it, does not dissipate from the water supply but is put into our water supply through urine, which even after the water is sanitized does not go away, which is consumed by all with some being more effected by it than others.

One thing is clear to me, it is not normal and it should not be taught or considered normal which will just further confuse future children.