Does Fred Phelps have biblical authority

[David B]

For his pronouncements on gays, punishment being laid down on the US for tolerating gays, and stuff like that?

I don't know the answer to this, but it might be interesting to look at the bible verses he uses to support his view, and have a look at whether his interpretation actually makes sense from a biblical inerrantist POV.

David

[TySixtus]

Yes. Of course he does. He doesn't quote the Bible because it proves him wrong. He quotes it because it proves him right.

Of course, other people have other verses to claim he's not correct. And that's the problem with the Bible. You can make it say anything you want. When something can mean anything at all, it means absolutely nothing.

[Davidnic]

I am not an inerrantist so I probably should not answer. I am a moderate somewhat conservative Christian. But Fred Phelps is a "word-I-don't-often-use-but-my-coal-miner-navy-serving-father-did" nutcase.

There is a difference from having a moral disagreement with someone and being a hatemonger. I've heard him go on about the sin of Sodom. He should check the Midrash. That sin would be (according to Jewish folklore) that they had a lack of hospitality...the city became so rich that they would kill the poor who would beg for money and became so greedy that they feared strangers would steal their prosperity. So it was illegal to shelter visitors in need. They also made it basically wrong to give alms and show compassion. Very much against everything Abraham was about and everything God asked him to do.

He could at least get the sin right and not the stock Victorian hijacking of the Biblical passage.

[reddhedd]

Only if you allow cherry picking, quote mining and mis-translations.

[tjakey]

At least some of the writers in the bible were pretty anti-gay, (if I remember correctly). They were also anti-woman, pro-kings, for slavery, had no probem with genocide, animal (and sometimes human) sacrifice, didn't seem to mind torturing people to death, the list is kind of endless. Read without the filter of thinking a god had anything to do with it, the bible is a pretty sorry excuse for a sorce of morality.

[Stout Drinker]

I think Fred Phelps is a closet atheist.

Even your whacked out xtian conservatives loathe him. His actions are done to discredit Christianity.

[SallyAnne]

I think Fred Phelps is a closet atheist.

Even your whacked out xtian conservatives loathe him. His actions are done to discredit Christianity.

LOL, yeah, but atheists seem to flock to him for some strange reason...they knew all about him before I did being a Christian for over 10years!:p

Maybe atheists secretly like him because he suits their agenda of discrediting Christianity.

[Pendaric]

Looking at the Westboro Baptist Church site, they quote this for starters:

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


20Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

[Ray Moscow]

For his pronouncements on gays, punishment being laid down on the US for tolerating gays, and stuff like that?

I don't know the answer to this, but it might be interesting to look at the bible verses he uses to support his view, and have a look at whether his interpretation actually makes sense from a biblical inerrantist POV.

David

Oh, yes. He's very biblical. He just picks out some of the more hateful bits that other Christians prefer to ignore or rationalise away.

[tjakey]

The Christians who try to denounce Phelps are every bit as guilty of "cherry-picking." The bible is full of ugly, which Christians need to ignore to hang onto their god.

[Lisa0315]

A preacher's authority comes from God. If the preacher's message does not line up with the message of the gospel, then, no, he has no Bibical authority. The message must line up completely, not bits and pieces.

So, anyone who preaches a message of "God hates!" is a false prophet and has no authority.

Anyone can take a passage of Scripture and make it mean anything they want. That does not make them a Bibical authority. It actually may make them damned in fact.

It is a dangerous thing to preach in the name of God and be a servant of Satan. Fred Phelps is an enemy of God.

Lisa

[Ray Moscow]

A preacher's authority comes from God. If the preacher's message does not line up with the message of the gospel, then, no, he has no Bibical authority. The message must line up completely, not bits and pieces.

So, anyone who preaches a message of "God hates!" is a false prophet and has no authority.

Anyone can take a passage of Scripture and make it mean anything they want. That does not make them a Bibical authority. It actually may make them damned in fact.

It is a dangerous thing to preach in the name of God and be a servant of Satan. Fred Phelps is an enemy of God.

Lisa

But Lisa: I remember Phelps and his followers arguing that that the "love" parts of the Bible have to be read in context of the hate and wrath ones, of which there are after all a great many.

All prophets are false prophets, BTW. Phelps just happens to be out of sync with the predominant culture by a century or two, that's all.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Aaaaand we know that because?

P1: The bible says X.
P2: The bible says Y.
C: Therefore, Y but not X.

How do you know hatred and intolerance isn't the 'true' message, with all of that love shit being a twisted corruption?

[Lisa0315]

Aaaaand we know that because?

P1: The bible says X.
P2: The bible says Y.
C: Therefore, Y but not X.

How do you know hatred and intolerance isn't the 'true' message, with all of that love shit being a twisted corruption?




Jesus condemned those like Fred Phelps in the Bible, those who held the Word, studied it, but still used it to gain power, wealth, and to hurt others with it. He called them white-washed tombs. Their appearance on the outside was holy and pure, but on the inside, they were rotting flesh.
Jesus gave two commandments: Love each other and love God. He said all other commandments hang on these two. So, love is the filter by which all other commands must go through. Love is the test that must be met.
Paul said that without charity, all other gifts are meaningless. If one speaks with the tongues of angels, without love in their hearts, it means nothing.
Fred Phelps fails all three of these. He is false. He is a Pharissee.

Lisa

[His Noodly Appendage]

Right, and a bunch of other people said the complete opposite.

Why is one set of people more authoritative than the other?

[Lisa0315]

Right, and a bunch of other people said the complete opposite.

Why is one set of people more authoritative than the other?

I am not using my authority or other people's. I am filtering through the commands of Christ and the instruction of Paul.

Believe me, I know the "love them enough to tell them the truth" crowd. A pack of raving hyenas are more likely to enter heaven.

Lisa

[His Noodly Appendage]

That doesn't answer the question. Why are Jesus and Paul authoritative, while Moses and Leviticus are not?

[His Noodly Appendage]

Here's a thought: don't take this the wrong way, but try reading your posts in the voice of Comic Book Guy.

Well obviously the Prime Directive allows alien dignitaries to be tried under Klingon law - after all, in Season 4, episode 6, Zarquod the Magnificent himself said that....

You get the idea. We see a bunch of cheap hollywood scriptwriters not getting paid for continuity here. Appealing to one character over another really isn't going to impress.

[Lisa0315]

That doesn't answer the question. Why are Jesus and Paul authoritative, while Moses and Leviticus are not?

Pretty simple actually. There is the law of God and the law of Moses. Some of the laws of Moses were given (per Jesus) for the hardness of men's hearts such as divorce and slavery. Those were given to control what God did not ordain from the beginning. Still others were given exclusively to the Jews for the sake of separation and purity, such as dress codes and dietary laws.

The ten commandments, the laws of God, apply to all of mankind, and these are the ones that are written on the hearts of man. Without any belief in any deity, we all know that murder is wrong for example. Murder may be defined differently from culture to culture, but every culture has defined it.

In the aftermath of the Babylonian exile, the temple was destroyed, the law of Moses was lost, and traditions of men became equal to the law of Moses. There arose groups, political, and religious who recovered the written law eventually, but in the meantime, assumed an authority and lost the spirit and intent of what the laws were for. I think this went on for a period of about 500 years before the birth of Christ.

They used the law as a weapon against the people, to hold their authority, and to make money. Jesus denounced these people as I said in my earlier post. He drove them out of the temple, preached strongly against them, and they eventually incited the people to crucify Jesus. There is a small bit of evidence that those who conspired against Jesus, Caiaphas in particular, knew exactly who Jesus was, and conspired against Him anyway.

Anyway, Jesus said over and over that the Pharissees and Sadduccees had lost the spirit of the law. He emphasized over and over what the intent of the law was, and He preached the love of God as His central message. Jesus did call sin sin. He did not mince words. At the same time, He turned no one away.

So, if a Christian, a Christ-follower is to truly walk in the footsteps of Christ, then, one does not cast stones nor do they turn anyone away.

That is not to say that sin is not sin. It is. However, it is not our place to judge sin, but His. It is not our place to convict people of sin, but His.

Our job is supposed to be to love people, give whatever resources we have to help others, show the love of God in every action.

We should preach the gospel everywhere we go, and sometimes we should use words (to paraphrase St. Francis of Assisi.)

Phelps is an evil, arrogant, tool of Satan. What better way to make people disregard the true message? What did Satan do in the garden? He told Eve a part truth and made her question what God actually said.

So, Phelps tells a part-truth. He says that homosexual sex is sin. Yeah, I cannot argue with that. That is the grain of Scripture he uses. What Phelps fails to tell folks though is that Jesus loves them anyway and has already forgiven them.

The work is completed. The price has been paid. The love, that is the filter for all things. It is the measure of who belongs to God and who does not. It is not magical words. It is not a moment. It is a journey.

I have spoken the words. I have had the religious experience. That was prison for me. It was a prison of only half-realized truth. My freedom came when I realized that love is the key to Christianity. Nothing else. That is the beauty. That is the truth. Everything else is doctrine which may or may not be correct.

Lisa

[Worldtraveller]

That all sounds nice, Lisa, and I'm sure most of us prefere xians with your view, but it doesn't mean your view actually has any more authority or correctness, it's just your view.

[BioBeing]

My freedom came will come when I realized that love is the key to Christianity Humanity. Nothing else. That is the beauty. That is the truth. Everything else is doctrine which may or may not be correct.

Lisa

Hope that helps.

[Lisa0315]

My freedom came will come when I realized that love is the key to Christianity Humanity. Nothing else. That is the beauty. That is the truth. Everything else is doctrine which may or may not be correct.

Lisa

Hope that helps.

Get off my lawn! :evil:

[Soul Invictus]

That doesn't answer the question. Why are Jesus and Paul authoritative, while Moses and Leviticus are not?

Pretty simple actually. There is the law of God and the law of Moses.

I don't understand this statement. It's my understanding that Moses was the 'vessel' or vehicle, or mouthpiece, however the law originated from, or was birthed by, God. Said differently, God is the source for all law. Your wording sounds like you're saying something different, and I just wanted clarification on that point.

Some of the laws of Moses were given (per Jesus) for the hardness of men's hearts such as divorce and slavery. Those were given to control what God did not ordain from the beginning.

I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by the law was given to control divorce and slavery?

Still others were given exclusively to the Jews for the sake of separation and purity, such as dress codes and dietary laws.

Why do you feel that the law was exclusively given to the Jews and they don't apply to all of mankind? Do you consider these laws and all laws as laws of God?

The ten commandments, the laws of God, apply to all of mankind, and these are the ones that are written on the hearts of man.

Are the ten commandments the only laws that apply to all mankind? If so, why only these? I'm not sure what 'written on the hearts of man' means. Can you explain this?

[Lisa0315]

That doesn't answer the question. Why are Jesus and Paul authoritative, while Moses and Leviticus are not?

Pretty simple actually. There is the law of God and the law of Moses.

I don't understand this statement. It's my understanding that Moses was the 'vessel' or vehicle, or mouthpiece, however the law originated from, or was birthed by, God. Said differently, God is the source for all law. Your wording sounds like you're saying something different, and I just wanted clarification on that point.



I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by the law was given to control divorce and slavery?

Still others were given exclusively to the Jews for the sake of separation and purity, such as dress codes and dietary laws.

Why do you feel that the law was exclusively given to the Jews and they don't apply to all of mankind? Do you consider these laws and all laws as laws of God?

The ten commandments, the laws of God, apply to all of mankind, and these are the ones that are written on the hearts of man.

Are the ten commandments the only laws that apply to all mankind? If so, why only these? I'm not sure what 'written on the hearts of man' means. Can you explain this?

Hi Soul! Long time, no talkie!

Yeah, dude. You read me right. No clarification needed. There is a distinguishment between the law of Moses and the law of God. Jesus plainly says so when He spoke on the subject of divorce.

Now, WHICH of those laws apply strictly to the Jews and which to everyone? Ten commandments definitely, everyone. The dietary and clothing laws, strictly to Israel. Laws on sexuality, I am not sure.

The rule of thumb generally is that if it is repeated in the New Testament, then, it is for everyone. If not, then, it is for the Jews only.

Lisa

[Brother Daniel]

Fred Phelps fails all three of these. He is false. He is a Pharissee.
Excuse the derail, but this is a very unfortunate usage of the word Pharisee, and I think it should be discouraged. Because it isn't at all fair to the real Pharisees. The Pharisees did not preach hatred, for one thing.

The Pharisees were simply one branch of Judaism. It also happens to be the one branch that survived the Roman onslaught that happened a few decades after the (alleged) time of Jesus. They are the spiritual ancestors of all of today's Jews, from Reform to Ultra-Orthodox and everything in between.

The NT is unfair on them anyway. We shouldn't be even more unfair by connecting them with the most odious creeps we can find, like Phelps.

[Worldtraveller]

Ten commandments definitely, everyone.
Definitely NOT! Only 3 of the ten are anything approaching what could be called universal, and even then, differ by cultures.

[Lisa0315]

Fred Phelps fails all three of these. He is false. He is a Pharissee.
Excuse the derail, but this is a very unfortunate usage of the word Pharisee, and I think it should be discouraged. Because it isn't at all fair to the real Pharisees. The Pharisees did not preach hatred, for one thing.

The Pharisees were simply one branch of Judaism. It also happens to be the one branch that survived the Roman onslaught that happened a few decades after the (alleged) time of Jesus. They are the spiritual ancestors of all of today's Jews, from Reform to Ultra-Orthodox and everything in between.

The NT is unfair on them anyway. We shouldn't be even more unfair by connecting them with the most odious creeps we can find, like Phelps.

I will correct that with the Pharissees that Jesus encountered, and the ones which persecuted the early church. Better?

Prolly not. How about hypocrite and false teacher then? :)

Lisa

[Brother Daniel]

How about hypocrite and false teacher then?
Better. (I'd go for "loathesome waste of space" or even "advertisement for the annihilation of the human species", myself.)

[Lisa0315]

Ten commandments definitely, everyone.
Definitely NOT! Only 3 of the ten are anything approaching what could be called universal, and even then, differ by cultures.


Worship God and God alone
Do not worship idols
Do not take the Lord's name in vain
Remember the Sabbath
Respect your mother and father
Do not murder
Do not cheat on your spouse
Do not steal
Do not make false accusations
Do not covet
How are these not universal, assuming that God is who God says that He is.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

How about hypocrite and false teacher then?
Better. (I'd go for "loathesome waste of space" or even "advertisement for the annihilation of the human species", myself.)

Evidence of De-evolutionary species :evil:

[Soul Invictus]

Hi Soul! Long time, no talkie!

Hey Lisa! Howdy doody! I've gotta get my posting up, so I imagine I'll be bouncing my ideas off of you! So get ready!

Yeah, dude. You read me right. No clarification needed. There is a distinguishment between the law of Moses and the law of God. Jesus plainly says so when He spoke on the subject of divorce.

I can accept that there is a distinction between what you call the law of Moses and the law of God. If there was different information communicated during those different times, this would serve as enough of distinction because of the fact that it is different law. I am asking if God is or is not the source for the law that you call the law of Moses.

Now, WHICH of those laws apply strictly to the Jews and which to everyone? Ten commandments definitely, everyone. The dietary and clothing laws, strictly to Israel. Laws on sexuality, I am not sure.

What passage(s) in the Old and New Testaments do you feel support the idea that not all of the laws were for everyone? The reason I ask for supporting passages from both is because the OT passages should state to whom the law is actively for just as the NT passages should.

The rule of thumb generally is that if it is repeated in the New Testament, then, it is for everyone. If not, then, it is for the Jews only.

As outlined above, I'd like you to provide Biblical references for this. I'm asking mostly to be assured that there is actually scriptural backing for this approach.

[Worldtraveller]

Ten commandments definitely, everyone.
Definitely NOT! Only 3 of the ten are anything approaching what could be called universal, and even then, differ by cultures.


Worship God and God alone
Do not worship idols
Do not take the Lord's name in vain
Remember the Sabbath
Respect your mother and father
Do not murder
Do not cheat on your spouse
Do not steal
Do not make false accusations
Do not covet
How are these not universal, assuming that God is who God says that He is.

Lisa
Go to youtube, search for George Carlin Ten Commandments.

Yeah, it's funny, but it's also true. (I'd provide the link, but I can get to YT from work).

And your last assumption is not a given in this case. We're talking biblical authority, not existence of god.

[Lisa0315]

Hi Soul! Long time, no talkie!

Hey Lisa! Howdy doody! I've gotta get my posting up, so I imagine I'll be bouncing my ideas off of you! So get ready!

Yeah, dude. You read me right. No clarification needed. There is a distinguishment between the law of Moses and the law of God. Jesus plainly says so when He spoke on the subject of divorce.

I can accept that there is a distinction between what you call the law of Moses and the law of God. If there was different information communicated during those different times, this would serve as enough of distinction because of the fact that it is different law. I am asking if God is or is not the source for the law that you call the law of Moses.

Now, WHICH of those laws apply strictly to the Jews and which to everyone? Ten commandments definitely, everyone. The dietary and clothing laws, strictly to Israel. Laws on sexuality, I am not sure.

What passage(s) in the Old and New Testaments do you feel support the idea that not all of the laws were for everyone? The reason I ask for supporting passages from both is because the OT passages should state to whom the law is actively for just as the NT passages should.

The rule of thumb generally is that if it is repeated in the New Testament, then, it is for everyone. If not, then, it is for the Jews only.

As outlined above, I'd like you to provide Biblical references for this. I'm asking mostly to be assured that there is actually scriptural backing for this approach.

K. Give me a sec. I know I can prove one of the two. The other may be an ideology similar to the Trinity, sort of inferred by Scripture but not stated outright. Let me see.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Definitely NOT! Only 3 of the ten are anything approaching what could be called universal, and even then, differ by cultures.


Worship God and God alone
Do not worship idols
Do not take the Lord's name in vain
Remember the Sabbath
Respect your mother and father
Do not murder
Do not cheat on your spouse
Do not steal
Do not make false accusations
Do not covet
How are these not universal, assuming that God is who God says that He is.

Lisa
Go to youtube, search for George Carlin Ten Commandments.

Yeah, it's funny, but it's also true. (I'd provide the link, but I can get to YT from work).

And your last assumption is not a given in this case. We're talking biblical authority, not existence of god.

Okay, let me get to SI's post first, okay? If I forget to get back to this, remind me, okay?

Lisa

[dancer_rnb]

Ten commandments definitely, everyone.
Definitely NOT! Only 3 of the ten are anything approaching what could be called universal, and even then, differ by cultures.


Worship God and God alone
Do not worship idols
Do not take the Lord's name in vain
Remember the Sabbath
Respect your mother and father
Do not murder
Do not cheat on your spouse
Do not steal
Do not make false accusations
Do not covet
How are these not universal, assuming that God is who God says that He is.

Lisa

Says the Christian.:D

http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm#Noah

Add:
According to traditional Judaism, G-d gave Noah and his family seven commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahic or Noahide commandments, are inferred from Genesis Ch. 9, and are as follows: 1) to establish courts of justice; 2) not to commit blasphemy; 3) not to commit idolatry; 4) not to commit incest and adultery; 5) not to commit bloodshed; 6) not to commit robbery; and 7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal. These commandments are fairly simple and straightforward, and most of them are recognized by most of the world as sound moral principles. Any non-Jew who follows these laws has a place in the world to come.

The Noahic commandments are binding on all people, because all people are descended from Noah and his family.

[TheBear]

Yes. Of course he does. He doesn't quote the Bible because it proves him wrong. He quotes it because it proves him right.

Of course, other people have other verses to claim he's not correct. And that's the problem with the Bible. You can make it say anything you want. When something can mean anything at all, it means absolutely nothing.
Agreed.

Any petty prejudice and personal bias, can always find justification in scripture.

[TheBear]

LOL, yeah, but atheists seem to flock to him for some strange reason
Phelps is a news spectacle. He gets the attention of many people - atheists being a tiny minority of that group. The bulk of people who "flock to him", are Christians.

...they knew all about him before I did being a Christian for over 10years!:p
You need to get out more.

Maybe atheists secretly like him because he suits their agenda of discrediting Christianity.
I'm not aware of any atheist agenda. I must have missed that meeting. ;)

[Lisa0315]

I can accept that there is a distinction between what you call the law of Moses and the law of God. If there was different information communicated during those different times, this would serve as enough of distinction because of the fact that it is different law. I am asking if God is or is not the source for the law that you call the law of Moses.
The source of all Scripture is God. It is divinely inspired. However, not all of Scripture is intended for all people. Most of the Old Testament was written solely for the Jewish people.
At the same time, non-Jewish Christians can understand more about God and what He desires by reading the OT.
The NT, on the other hand, is for all people at all times.
Finally, there is something that we call “Liberty in Christ” which means (for example) that one person may want to keep the Mosaic law and another may feel no compulsion to do so. There is much evidence written by Paul that some “sins” are sins for one person and not for another. This is why we are not supposed to point fingers at other people.
Here is an example of that: The subject is circumcision. Some Jews were saying that the Gentiles needed to become circumcised Jews before they could become a Christian. Paul rebukes them for this:

1 Corinthians 7:17-24
17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. 18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: F20 (http://classicbst.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=1co+7:18&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1#F20#F20) likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. 23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. 24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.


Quote:
Now, WHICH of those laws apply strictly to the Jews and which to everyone? Ten commandments definitely, everyone. The dietary and clothing laws, strictly to Israel. Laws on sexuality, I am not sure.

What passage(s) in the Old and New Testaments do you feel support the idea that not all of the laws were for everyone? The reason I ask for supporting passages from both is because the OT passages should state to whom the law is actively for just as the NT passages should.
One very simple clue is that the Children of Israel are addressed by name in the law. Moses was to tell the people this or that.
Deuteronomy 31:9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel
11 When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. 12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law: 13 And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it
Another clue is that judges were appointed to explain, discern and to enforce the law but only among the Israelites. In other words, God did not appoint judges to the Egyptians, Syrians, or other nations. Later when there were kings, the kings had to hand write the entire law and memorize it. It was part of the job of the king to know the law like the back of his hand. In this way, he replaced the judges and was guided by prophets of God.
Finally, we see the Jews shunning other nations and seeing them as unclean. They were unclean because they did not have the law. The law was given for two reasons: To keep Israel separate and pure, and to show the need for a Savior as no man could keep the whole law. The story of Jonah’s resistance in going to Ninevah is an example of how the law of Moses was exclusive to the Jews, but it was not the law of Moses that had been broken, and it was not the law of Moses which condemned Ninevah in the eyes of God. Instead, it was “violence in the hands of the men of Ninevah”. I am not going to post the whole book here, but to understand, you would have to read the whole book of Jonah. It is only 4 chapters.

Quote:
The rule of thumb generally is that if it is repeated in the New Testament, then, it is for everyone. If not, then, it is for the Jews only.

As outlined above, I'd like you to provide Biblical references for this. I'm asking mostly to be assured that there is actually scriptural backing for this approach.

Oh, boy, I am going to need Davidnic on this one. I think this might be one of those doctrines that is inferred but not stated outright like the Trinity. Let me see if I can get him to weigh in on this one, okay?

[Joykins]

The Council in Jerusalem decided that Gentile converts should be required/urged to avoid "sexual immorality".

I kind of like the flexibility in that phrase. I don't think Phelps perceives it the way I do.

[Joykins]

Yes. Of course he does. He doesn't quote the Bible because it proves him wrong. He quotes it because it proves him right.

Of course, other people have other verses to claim he's not correct. And that's the problem with the Bible. You can make it say anything you want. When something can mean anything at all, it means absolutely nothing.


"Sodomy" has been a capital offense in Western civ within the last couple hundred years, and is in the Bible in Leviticus. Phelps is in line with that tradition of homophobia.

It's not a real emphasis in the Bible (there are only a few verses on the topic in the whole 66 books, one of which asks for a civil penalty), but it certainly appears to be Phelp's obsession and emphasis.

[lpetrich]

Talk about rewrites of history. There is more homophobia in the Bible than mentions of the Golden Rule in it, for instance.

And try explaining away Byzantine Emperor Justinian's New Laws 77 and 141, which state that homosexual acts are so bad that they provoke God into sending famines and plagues and earthquakes and the like. He even stated that God has destroyed entire cities because of such acts.

He lived 483 - 564 CE, which was a long time before the last few hundred years.

And in the Middle Ages, there were lots of prosecutions for committing homosexual acts, some of them trumped-up to get rid of certain people, like the Knights Templar. Also, the words "sodomy" and "buggery" date back to the Middle Ages.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Lisa: we're not assuming god is who he says he is. Again, a neutral perspective might help.

We point out that the plot of Star Trek is so utterly full of holes and inconsistencies that it obviously can't be factual.

You rebut, saying that obviously events A, C, E, G happened, and that B, D, F didn't - on the basis that Scotty would never willingly place the Enterprise in jeopardy.

We ask why Scotty's character should be any more axiomatic than Kirk's.

You start quoting Starfleet directives, and cap it off with "Assuming Klingons are real, why wouldn't they apply?"

It's utterly frickin bizarre.

[Joykins]

Talk about rewrites of history. There is more homophobia in the Bible than mentions of the Golden Rule in it, for instance.


There are a lot more verses saying to love each other than saying that homosexual sex (between men, specifically) is wrong. The Golden Rule is kind of a weird thing to pick because AFAIK that *formulation* is only in there once.

here are the passages on homosexuality:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/tniv/HOMOSEX.TXT ( I can't vouch for the site, but that looks pretty thorough)

Given the number of verses in the Bible, that's pretty short.


And try explaining away Byzantine Emperor Justinian's New Laws 77 and 141, which state that homosexual acts are so bad that they provoke God into sending famines and plagues and earthquakes and the like. He even stated that God has destroyed entire cities because of such acts.

He lived 483 - 564 CE, which was a long time before the last few hundred years.

And in the Middle Ages, there were lots of prosecutions for committing homosexual acts, some of them trumped-up to get rid of certain people, like the Knights Templar. Also, the words "sodomy" and "buggery" date back to the Middle Ages.

Right. I was trying to say that *as recently as* a few hundred years ago (or perhaps less) sodomy was a capital crime in England and that there was a long tradition of such laws. There are similar traditions in non-Christian cultures as well.

[Brother Daniel]

The Council in Jerusalem decided that Gentile converts should be required/urged to avoid "sexual immorality".

I kind of like the flexibility in that phrase. I don't think Phelps perceives it the way I do.
Even the translation "sexual immorality" is questionable, since it's not even clear that the apostles saw the prohibition on porneia as a moral issue.

In the Council of Jerusalem story, they explicitly put it in the same category as eating meat that has been offered to idols. And eating blood (which Christians other than JWits have never worried about since then). So the degree to which these prohibitions are universal/moral (as opposed to context-specific/"ceremonial" or whatever) must be the same, since there's no NT evidence telling us otherwise.

Now if we do the proper Christian thing and assume consistency within the NT at all costs (which is questionable, but bear with me, just for fun), then we have to look at Paul's statements about eating meat that has been offered to idols, in order to judge the applicability of the prohibition on porneia.

And the conclusion is: It's no big deal at all. Just don't be in your face about it, to those whose faith is so weak that they're bothered by it!

[Joykins]

The Council in Jerusalem decided that Gentile converts should be required/urged to avoid "sexual immorality".

I kind of like the flexibility in that phrase. I don't think Phelps perceives it the way I do.
Even the translation "sexual immorality" is questionable, since it's not even clear that the apostles saw the prohibition on porneia as a moral issue.

In the Council of Jerusalem story, they explicitly put it in the same category as eating meat that has been offered to idols. And eating blood (which Christians other than JWits have never worried about since then). So the degree to which these prohibitions are universal/moral (as opposed to context-specific/"ceremonial" or whatever) must be the same, since there's no NT evidence telling us otherwise.

Really? The rules set out for gentile converts at the Council of Jerusalem are fairly close to the Noachide laws--which means to me that the apostles were looking for a rule-set that would apply to gentles who want to be righteous.


Now if we do the proper Christian thing and assume consistency within the NT at all costs

No fun!

(which is questionable, but bear with me, just for fun),

No fun!

then we have to look at Paul's statements about eating meat that has been offered to idols, in order to judge the applicability of the prohibition on porneia.

And the conclusion is: It's no big deal at all. Just don't be in your face about it, to those whose faith is so weak that they're bothered by it!

We also have to look about what Paul says about porneia elsewhere and the fact is that he isn't keen on it. And he has a point, psychologically the intimate acts affect people intimately; sex goes to the core of our relationships.

Also, Paul repeatedly points out to people that THEY ARE NOT UNDER LAW. Of course that means throughout the ages people have looked to Paul to build a new law.

[dancer_rnb]

Joykins,

Noachide laws?

(Probably should start a thread.:D)

[Lisa0315]

Well Deuteronomy 4:7-8 states the law is only for Israel:

What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?

And Psalm 147:19-20:

He has revealed his word to Jacob,his laws and decrees to Israel. He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. Praise the Lord.

And Malachi 4:4

Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.

So the law was given to Israel. And in Jonah it does not say the Assyrians needed to follow the law of Moses...only that they repent of their wickedness. And they did, without taking up the law of Moses. And were preserved.

So we have the OT saying it is just for Israel. And Jesus saying it was given in a way they could accept not in fullness. And then Christ saying the new law is for all. Ahhh...dangerous are these Catholics who know their Scripture.

Now, the law may be profitable, to some extent, for all. But it was only for Israel to prepare a place that would produce Christ who would bring the new law to all.

Peace,
Dave

[Davidnic]

The thing is that in some respects you need to look at Scripture as a historical progression. But also as a progression of the relationship between God and people. First Israel and then everyone. And a progression from baby steps to full walking...with massive stumbles along the way.

My issue with Phelps is that he does not even understand historical context. He does not seem even mildly educated in anything but the parroting of Scripture.

I hope no one takes offense at my comment:

Ahhh...dangerous are these Catholics who know their Scripture.

I trust you all know how others view the relationship between Catholics and the Bible. Often we are treated by other Christians as if we were rare as unicorns if a Catholic knows Scripture. That was my meaning of that.

Does the Bible have some stuff that is violent...brutal and primitive. Yeah. There was a time when we all were violent, brutal and primitive. And Christians believe that God led us by baby steps with the "food we could handle at the time"" until we grew up.

I am not saying homosexuality is morally right in the Christian view or that it is a belief that is changing...that is a different discussion. But I am saying that the vile spew of Fred Phelps is something that is not in keeping with the true nature of the Theology.

[Lisa0315]

The thing is that in some respects you need to look at Scripture as a historical progression. But also as a progression of the relationship between God and people. First Israel and then everyone. And a progression from baby steps to full walking...with massive stumbles along the way.

My issue with Phelps is that he does not even understand historical context. He does not seem even mildly educated in anything but the parroting of Scripture.

I hope no one takes offense at my comment:

Ahhh...dangerous are these Catholics who know their Scripture.

I trust you all know how others view the relationship between Catholics and the Bible. Often we are treated by other Christians as if we were rare as unicorns if a Catholic knows Scripture. That was my meaning of that.

Does the Bible have some stuff that is violent...brutal and primitive. Yeah. There was a time when we all were violent, brutal and primitive. And Christians believe that God led us by baby steps with the "food we could handle at the time"" until we grew up.

I am not saying homosexuality is morally right in the Christian view or that it is a belief that is changing...that is a different discussion. But I am saying that the vile spew of Fred Phelps is something that is not in keeping with the true nature of the Theology.

I am sorry David. I understood the joke and didn't even think about how others might not.

Lisa

[TySixtus]

What is the "true nature of the Theology", and how is that Fred Phelps doesn't possess it?

[Davidnic]

The thing is that in some respects you need to look at Scripture as a historical progression. But also as a progression of the relationship between God and people. First Israel and then everyone. And a progression from baby steps to full walking...with massive stumbles along the way.

My issue with Phelps is that he does not even understand historical context. He does not seem even mildly educated in anything but the parroting of Scripture.

I hope no one takes offense at my comment:

Ahhh...dangerous are these Catholics who know their Scripture.

I trust you all know how others view the relationship between Catholics and the Bible. Often we are treated by other Christians as if we were rare as unicorns if a Catholic knows Scripture. That was my meaning of that.

Does the Bible have some stuff that is violent...brutal and primitive. Yeah. There was a time when we all were violent, brutal and primitive. And Christians believe that God led us by baby steps with the "food we could handle at the time"" until we grew up.

I am not saying homosexuality is morally right in the Christian view or that it is a belief that is changing...that is a different discussion. But I am saying that the vile spew of Fred Phelps is something that is not in keeping with the true nature of the Theology.

I am sorry David. I understood the joke and didn't even think about how others might not.

Lisa

Don't worry about it a bit. I just wanted to explain. I think most people know the "Catholics don't know their Scripture" thing. I just wanted to make sure. No prob.

[Soul Invictus]

I can accept that there is a distinction between what you call the law of Moses and the law of God. If there was different information communicated during those different times, this would serve as enough of distinction because of the fact that it is different law. I am asking if God is or is not the source for the law that you call the law of Moses.

The source of all Scripture is God. It is divinely inspired. However, not all of Scripture is intended for all people. Most of the Old Testament was written solely for the Jewish people.
At the same time, non-Jewish Christians can understand more about God and what He desires by reading the OT.

So we all aren't required to obey the law in its entirety. That's a provocative position to me. With the end all being heaven, there doesn't seem to be any indication of which laws are required to get into heaven, assuming if following the law is even a prequisite for getting into heaven. I would like to ask you if it is.

Secondly, why would a non-Jewish Christian have any motivation or reason to attempt to understand what god desires based on OT scripture if that person isn't compelled to accomodate god in this manner or under these guidelines?

The NT, on the other hand, is for all people at all times.

The rule of thumb generally is that if it is repeated in the New Testament, then, it is for everyone. If not, then, it is for the Jews only.

I placed these two comments together since they are saying the same thing. I know you mentioned getting together with Davidnic on this point. I'd like to discuss that as soon as you're able to have that discussion.


Now, WHICH of those laws apply strictly to the Jews and which to everyone? Ten commandments definitely, everyone. The dietary and clothing laws, strictly to Israel. Laws on sexuality, I am not sure.

Why do you say the ten commandments are definitely for everyone, but the dietary and clothing laws are strictly for Israel?

Finally, we see the Jews shunning other nations and seeing them as unclean. They were unclean because they did not have the law. The law was given for two reasons: To keep Israel separate and pure, and to show the need for a Savior as no man could keep the whole law.

What does it matter if non-Jews are unclean if they are able to see the kingdom of heaven by not adhering to Jewish law? It seems to render the idea of being unclean as being of no importance.

[BioBeing]

Didn't Jesus say he had come to fulfill the law (how the fuck do you fulfill a law anyway), and that it was not to be changed one letter? Makes me think that he is saying the old laws still stand even in the NT.

[Lisa0315]

Didn't Jesus say he had come to fulfill the law (how the fuck do you fulfill a law anyway), and that it was not to be changed one letter? Makes me think that he is saying the old laws still stand even in the NT.

Fulfil the law of God, not the law of Moses. Jesus even speaks of one Mosaic law that was given for the hardness of men's hearts, but it was not so in the beginning...divorce. He then goes onto say that divorce should be for adultery only.

Lisa

[lpetrich]

Fulfil the law of God, not the law of Moses. ...
Where does the law of God end and the law of Moses begin? Moses is not exactly described as saying at one point: "God's laws end here and my laws begin here."

[SallyAnne]

LOL, yeah, but atheists seem to flock to him for some strange reason
Phelps is a news spectacle. He gets the attention of many people - atheists being a tiny minority of that group. The bulk of people who "flock to him", are Christians.



Really? I haven't come across one Christian yet who even agrees with him, let alone "flock to him." Every single Christian I've come across (including myself) have the same sentiments about him that Lisa is describing throughout this thread.

Maybe I'm out of the loop of this "bulk of Christians" who seem to be flocking to Phelps the Wolf.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Strawman.

The claim was that most of Phelps' followers are Christians, not that most Christians follow Phelps.

All ostriches are birds, not all birds are ostriches.

[SallyAnne]

Strawman.

The claim was that most of Phelps' followers are Christians, not that most Christians follow Phelps.

All ostriches are birds, not all birds are ostriches.


Oh ok. How many "followers" does he have?

[RBH]

Ten commandments definitely, everyone.
Definitely NOT! Only 3 of the ten are anything approaching what could be called universal, and even then, differ by cultures.


Worship God and God alone
Do not worship idols
Do not take the Lord's name in vain
Remember the Sabbath
Respect your mother and father
Do not murder
Do not cheat on your spouse
Do not steal
Do not make false accusations
Do not covet
How are these not universal, assuming that God is who God says that He is.

LisaUm, when directly asked, Jesus only identified 6 'secular' commandments that have to be followed, not the whole batch from the OT. See Mathew 19:18-19.

[Joykins]

Noachide laws. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah)

[TheBear]

LOL, yeah, but atheists seem to flock to him for some strange reason
Phelps is a news spectacle. He gets the attention of many people - atheists being a tiny minority of that group. The bulk of people who "flock to him", are Christians.



Really?
I don't know. You're the one who started out with the "flock to him" remark. Perhaps you could clarify or rephrase your remarks. I'm just trying to keep up.

[BioBeing]

Didn't Jesus say he had come to fulfill the law (how the fuck do you fulfill a law anyway), and that it was not to be changed one letter? Makes me think that he is saying the old laws still stand even in the NT.

Fulfil the law of God, not the law of Moses. Jesus even speaks of one Mosaic law that was given for the hardness of men's hearts, but it was not so in the beginning...divorce. He then goes onto say that divorce should be for adultery only.

Lisa

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Where does it differentiate between God and Moses? Wasn't Moses a Prophet anyway?