Butch Jones bracelet Bible verse

#226
#226
Roustabout said:
Based on your comments, I question whether your notion of 'love' is in the same context. It's sounds very revisionist with a hippie Jesus, and not the one of the Bible. Jesus didn't focus on tolerance and acceptance either. He confronted people in their sin, challenged wrong thinking and hypocrisy, but always in mercy. He spoke often of judgment and a fiery one at that.
Not sure what you are driving at with Eunuch?
Click to expand...

About the only time I ever read about Jesus get riled up was when the money changers were in the Temple. You see, he was all about helping the poor and disadvantaged. Talking about loving everyone, and saying his Kingdom was an inclusive one. I think he may have been talking about those who live an alternative lifestyle in Matthew 19:12:

“For there are eunuchs who are born thus from their mothers womb, and there are eunuchs who are made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who are eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake. Let those who can accept it, accept it.”
 
#228
#228
Yeah,God is going to let the Vols win games while at the same time letting children suffer and die.
 
#230
#230
Back to the OP. As a believer and bible teacher, bible proof text used to support one's personal motives drive me nuts. Example: the Tebow eye black. "I can do all things......"
Well, except make it as an NFL QB. I even saw an MMA fighter with Phil. 4:13 tattooed on their arm. "I can do all things (like beat the living hell out of this other guy) through Christ who strengthens me." Utter nonsense.
We live in a sound byte world, which has no place in biblical exegesis.
 
#231
#231
UT Hill Man said:
About the only time I ever read about Jesus get riled up was when the money changers were in the Temple. You see, he was all about helping the poor and disadvantaged. Talking about loving everyone, and saying his Kingdom was an inclusive one. I think he may have been talking about those who live an alternative lifestyle in Matthew 19:12:

“For there are eunuchs who are born thus from their mothers womb, and there are eunuchs who are made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who are eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake. Let those who can accept it, accept it.”
Click to expand...
You say you "think" Jesus might have been talking about? What are you basing that from? Contextual exegesis allows us to ask the question, "what did this mean to the original audience?" The term eunuch has a contextual meaning to the 1st century audience and speaker. In my study I don't see anything to indicate this word referenced homosexual behaviors or attractions.

So, my concern is that you are taking your social position and then interpreting the bible through that lens. Starting with a position and then forcing an interpretation that is beyond the text is a wreckless hermeneutic. A believer should let the Bible (rightly divided) shape their position.
The Bible is consistent in its support of traditional marriage and in its condemnation of same sex behavior. That said, a person, regardless of their sexual proclivities, is "accepted" by God based on one thing alone. Trusting Christ. God's acceptance of a sinner is by His grace through faith and is in no way an endorsement of a particular behavior or lifestyle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#232
#232
#233
#233
#234
#234
Panthro said:
Even the Pope says arguing Creationism vs Evolution is silly. They can coexist. God created evolution.
If anyone on here cares enough to challenge themselves and maybe learn a little something, read Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation (Crossway Classic Commentaries): John Haught: 9780809136063: Amazon.com: Books .
Click to expand...

I read a lot of alternate theories when it comes to creation. So, whether progressive creation, day-age, YEC, or theistic evolution. I think it's important to understand the different positions. However, they can't all be right. What you fail to understand is that your opinion is an attempt to reconcile but would be viewed with contempt by atheists and hard line creationist as well. If you think (and I'm not saying you do) materialists and naturalists are satisfied by "God created evolution" then you are very naive.
 
#235
#235
Roustabout said:
Based on your comments, I question whether your notion of 'love' is in the same context. It's sounds very revisionist with a hippie Jesus, and not the one of the Bible. Jesus didn't focus on tolerance and acceptance either. He confronted people in their sin, challenged wrong thinking and hypocrisy, but always in mercy. He spoke often of judgment and a fiery one at that.
Not sure what you are driving at with Eunuch?

And yes, he focused on love in the sense of compassion, sacrifice, being selfless, and submitting oneself to God.
Click to expand...


Pretty well true. Christ may not have gotten "riled up" physically very many times in the Bible, but he certainly used his words as a weapon and a warning, especially against the Jewish priesthood and scholars of Jewish law. He even chastises his disciples for some of the things they say.

Refer to Luke 17:2 "It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."

Directly Christ was talking to his disciples about bringing children up in the faith and not leading them astray or dismissing them, but in a broader context he was addressing the priests and scholars directly and "little ones" then refers to all of those who are willing to believe in Christ. Christ is basically saying that if you decide to follow your own rules and you lead others to do the same, your fate will be worse than anything you can imagine.

Christ never teaches tolerance or acceptance with regards to behaviors. What he is pointing out for us is the inherent power within us all (through a relationship with him) to change our lives away from sin and toward a life that honors God.

Whenever you see Christ engaging someone whom Jewish society considers a "sinner", such as a prostitute or a tax collector, he compels them to "go and sin no more". He never ever says "hey, its OK to be a prostitute" But what he is saying is that "its OK if you HAVE BEEN a prostitute in your past. You still have the power to change that and to live a new life in me."

In short Christ does get riled up all the time, but ultimately he is saying that you cant write someone off as a sinner for their whole lives based on their past transgressions but instead you are to encourage them to become more Christ-like and recognize the inherent value in the PERSON, not discount them based on wrong behavior or wrong choices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#236
#236
While evolution and creationism could coexist, by combining them, you say parts of the bible isn't true and since the bible says the bible "is God breathed" and also that "God can't lie", what you're saying by default is the whole thing is wrong. Nothing in the bible, as hard as people have tried, has been proven false, by anyone including scientists. The bible lays out a precise genealogy that you can trace back to Adam and add up the years. True scientific evidence is actually stronger against evolution and just like throughout the entire bible, the majority will turn a blind eye to the truth at all cost. Always been that way, always will. I gotta run but I will be back later to present this evidence.
 
Last edited:
#237
#237
big harry said:
While evolution and creationism could coexist, by combining them, you say parts of the bible isn't true and since the bible says the bible "is God breathed" and also that "God can't lie", what you're saying by default is the whole thing is wrong. Nothing in the bible, as hard as people have tried, has been proven false, by anyone including scientists. The bible lays out a precise genealogy that you can trace back to Adam and add up the years. True scientific evidence is actually stronger against evolution and just like throughout the entire bible, the majority will turn a blind eye to the truth at all cost. Always been that way, always will. I gotta run but I will be back later to present this evidence.
Click to expand...
As a Christian and a creationist I see a lot of problems with your post.
First, the scientific method is not even a medium to analyze moral truth claims. Period, end of discussion.
Scientific evidence is not stronger 'against' evolution. Evidence never takes a side. Interpretations do. Evolution is to broad a term to say what is or isn't false. Natural selection for example is testable and observable. That is change, and therefore in the most broad sense, is evolution. However, it doesn't mean Darwinism is true or an accurate explanation for our origins.
Also, you are presupposing that the genealogies in the bible were written to date the earth. If that is the purpose then what interpretive grounds are you basing that on?
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top