Weird Time for Christians

[BigRedBuster]

13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I don't think this is true. I DON'T (that's an edit ) think the Bible was edited or added to. Those passages have always been in there. I think more focus was put toward some of those passages for whatever personal or political reasons.

 

I am with you on the confusion about some sects focus on homosexuality. The Bible enumerates hundreds of things you shouldn't do. Homosexuality is just one of them, and the ones those same sects don't focus on are ones they're most guilty of.

 

Maybe their focus on homosexuality is so they don't feel so bad about their own obvious scriptural shortcomings.

Homosexuality is the "gross" one.  So, it's easy for them to believe it's so horrible....compared to the ones they do every day.

[ColoradoHusk]

12 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I don't think this is true. I DON'T (that's an edit ) think the Bible was edited or added to. Those passages have always been in there. I think more focus was put toward some of those passages for whatever personal or political reasons.

 

I am with you on the confusion about some sects focus on homosexuality. The Bible enumerates hundreds of things you shouldn't do. Homosexuality is just one of them, and the ones those same sects don't focus on are ones they're most guilty of.

 

Maybe their focus on homosexuality is so they don't feel so bad about their own obvious scriptural shortcomings.

I am far from a Theology expert, but in some quick Google-machine searching, the Bible was changed in the 1940s from a wording of "man shall not lie with young boys, as he does with woman..." to a wording of "man shall not lie with man...".  Obviously the first phrase is referring to wrongful acts of adults molesting and having sex with underage kids, while the second phrase is "expanded" to include all homosexuality.  Of course, anything can be interpreted differently by various groups of people.

 

https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-“homosexual”-always-been-in-the-bible/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality

 

[ColoradoHusk]

2 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

If just the new testament you'd probably be right.

 

But the overall teaching comes from Leviticus 18 which is much, much older...written in a different language than the NT and less debated for interpretation than the NT verses.  It also wasn't changed in the 1940's.

 

 

Thanks!

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I am far from a Theology expert, but in some quick Google-machine searching, the Bible was changed in the 1940s from a wording of "man shall not lie with young boys, as he does with woman..." to a wording of "man shall not lie with man...".  Obviously the first phrase is referring to wrongful acts of adults molesting and having sex with underage kids, while the second phrase is "expanded" to include all homosexuality.  Of course, anything can be interpreted differently by various groups of people.

 

https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-“homosexual”-always-been-in-the-bible/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality

 

 

I hadn't seen that. Interesting. But that really only speaks to the word "homosexual," not to the denunciation of the act itself.

 

The prohibitions against homosexual acts in Leviticus exist in the original Torah (the book of Vayikra), predating Jesus. 

 

Maybe omission of the word "homosexual" in the Bible until the 1940s speaks more to the forbidden nature of the whole thing - as in, they wouldn't even mention it by name? Hard to say.

[DevoHusker]

 

 

[knapplc]

I would imagine our more devout citizens will be thrilled to have a man of faith in the White House once again.

 

 

[knapplc]

Nebraska priest who said he performed exorcism at U.S. Capitol apologizes, explains actions

“This guy wanted to interview me, and I could tell that he wasn’t … of good intention,” Fulton said. “But I thought maybe I could lead him to something that could help to evangelize him. And so I tried to find commonalities with what he was saying — he was saying very anti-Catholic stuff.

 

“I was trying to lead him to, maybe, information that could maybe change his mind, or at least suppress his anti-Catholicism,” Fulton said. “And so he edited the video and he ended up weaponizing it.”

 

After Becker watched the online video of Fulton’s Sunday comments to his parishioners, Becker posted his full five-minute interview with Fulton on his YouTube channel. Previously, Becker had shared the full interview only with a World-Herald reporter.

 

Fulton’s comments on Sunday, in addition to what he told Becker, further outraged former parishioners. They said they felt again that the Archdiocese of Omaha wouldn’t listen to their concerns that Fulton couldn’t effectively lead the parish. They said they had brought the issue to archdiocesan officials in September 2019 and asserted that the matter had divided the town.

 

The Archdiocese of Omaha said Friday that Fulton is not a trained exorcist and that he later told church officials that he had not performed a formal exorcism, but “led others in prayer.” Through a spokesman, Archbishop Lucas said he was “very angry” at Fulton and said Fulton shouldn’t have attended the event, much less been there dressed as a priest, because “it was a misuse of his priestly ministry.”

 

Archdiocesan officials said Fulton’s views do not reflect the views of the archdiocese. After the article was posted Friday, Deacon Tim McNeil, the chancellor for the Archdiocese of Omaha, sent an additional comment from Lucas: “Whether or not Fr. Fulton broke any laws, I condemn his participation in the event in the strongest terms.”

 

 

 

[knapplc]

I have a bit of a problem with this...

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[RedDenver]

 

[knapplc]

This holds true in my circle of friends. 

 

 

[Enhance]

@knapplc agreed - that poll supports my anecdotal experience in my social circles.

[Archy1221]

22 minutes ago, Enhance said:

@knapplc agreed - that poll supports my anecdotal experience in my social circles.

He advocated for policies that were most important to their beliefs.   Where is the disconnect?  

[BigRedBuster]

28 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

He advocated for policies that were most important to their beliefs.   Where is the disconnect?  

LOL...maybe the disconnect is that evangelicals should have different views on issues than they do.

Example.  Not sure Jesus taught too much about love of guns.  Meanwhile, some evangelicals tie their first amendment rights to their religion.

[Enhance]

40 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

He advocated for policies that were most important to their beliefs.   Where is the disconnect?  

To which beliefs are you referring, exactly? Because if we're basing this solely off of "beliefs" and the core tenants of evangelicalism, Trump's behavior, rhetoric and decisions are often at odds with those beliefs more than they are aligned.

 

Now, if we're talking about other beliefs i.e. the things many evangelicals have used for centuries to discriminate against other groups of people and their beliefs, then yes - he did advocate for a lot of those beliefs. No question.

 

Do I think Jesus looks at Trump as a Christian and beholden to his teachings? No. Which makes such sweeping support of Trump, from an evangelical perspective, absolutely baffling. As a practicing Christian, I can easily and readily admit that a significant portion of the faith has a history of unhindered hypocrisy, and this is no exception IMO.