Anglican priests to join Catholic Church

[MajGenl.Meade]

BigRR - thanks and hello ag ain! I don't really want to argue now about the Bible per se. I'd much rather you explained to me how you do understand the quoted section of Paul. Your argument that my interpretation is wrong is not backed by any contrary interpretation of the words he used. For example, regardless of your doubt as to what an idolator is, if a person claims to be an idolator, worships false gods and directly contradicts the God of the Bible, should that person qualify for a job as bishop in (say) an Episcopal church? (I want to avoid any claim that some odd "christian" church in New Hampshire believes idols are really all god).

Are you able to respond to the actual question at issue?

But I'll play....

do you honestly believe that something so complex and totally different from us as god can be fully explained by a single book?

No and that has never been claimed (by me or any sensible Christian).

A book written by persons who lived thousands of years ago?

Actually 66 books - 39 in the OT and 27 in the New. And all of the NT is less than 2000 years old so the plural wouldn't technically be applicable . I don't think the time of writing has much to do with anything, whether in the case of the Bible or secular works.

These person wrote as they understood things in their own words; even taking into account divine inspiration,

I may be wrong but isn't there a little modern-day elitism expressed there? To be sure they wrote as they understood things (don't we all?) but the ancient world wasn't filled with stupid people - they knew where babies came from. Now, if we do take into account "divine inspiration" the suggestion seems to be that God inspired them to write truthfully but either they couldn't do it or God got it wrong? Presumably they did understand what God wanted them to understand.

I have never seen any claim that the bible was dictated word for word and they transcribed it; god "spoke" to them as he/she/it still speaks to us, and they wrote down what they saw/heard/experienced as best they could. Like the blind men and the elephant, they did not necessarily have the entire picture in their minds, nor could they compare it to anything they had experienced.

I think there was a time when some people thought the Bible was dictated but the "official" understanding is that every author wrote in their own style the truth that God "breathed" into them and that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in the original autograph. Leaving aside blind men and elephants (a group of very stupid blind men who obviously had managed as a group to avoid all understanding of elephants throughout their lives; what happened to the much vaunted sense of smell that the blind have? And I wonder how they'd have done with cat or giraffe?) - leaving them aside I say, not one of the Biblical writers remotely suggests that they "have the entire picture in their minds" - in fact, in one way or another the Bible is clear that no-one knows or understands God's ways in full. God says so. And I will add that blind men and elephants can certainly be applied to the way some people examine the Bible.

for example, when healing of the mentally ill is referred to as "casting out demons", that was what persons at the time thought.

I find this rather remarkable. The Bible nowhere says that these people were mentally ill and I presume that no-one who says that they were mentally ill was actually on-site to examine them? One may make up any number of "mentally ill" diagnoses (many of which would not agree with each other I'm sure) but one may also assume that the people actually were inhabited by demons. My African friends assure me that spirits really can do such things (even though I doubt; but who am I to be an expert on their culture even in the 21st century?). Now apparently Jesus did wonderful things for some people who were "possessed by demons" (no more than 6 actually) and cured them to their eternal gratitude. I have no problem with that.

If I thought god really taught that such illness was cased by evil demons, I would want nothing to do with him/her/it, but I don't think that is the case.

I'm very glad then to confirm that the Bible does not teach - nor does God teach - that mentally ill people should be "treated" by some kind of exorcistic rituals (none of which are in the Bible by the way) because mental illness is caused by evil demons. So we can concur that this is not the case and move on.

God cannot and is not contained within a book; god inhabits the universe and is not limited by any writing or our understanding of it. God speaks to us, and only asks that we listen.

Very true; I think it's some other religion that thinks god is contained in a book. God spoke to many people and they wrote down the truth in 66 books. We should indeed listen, do our best to understand and then explain what it is that is understood to see if matches what God's word says (internal consistency) and what reality is (external consistency)

And if that denigrates the bible, so be it; I'd rather speak of the bible truthfully than limit god.

[/quote]
A rather odd sentiment for a Christian given that the Bible is the ONLY source of original information as to our faith. Christ seems to have held the scriptures of the OT in very high regard, speaking of them as the word of God. If we say something that denigrates the Bible, the question must arise as to whether we are speaking truth or have got our ideas a bit wrong. I welcome truthful speaking about the Bible. It is a serious (deadly serious of course to the Christian) matter since it deals with life, death and salvation.

So what do you make of that passage of Paul's? Are unrepentant sinners as he describes barred from the Kingdom until/unless they repent and believe and are changed?

Regards
Meade

[Big RR]

Meade--Paul gives a list of things he considers to be sinful; until I understand what he meant by each of these, I am not in a position to say anything more.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade--Paul gives a list of things he considers to be sinful; until I understand what he meant by each of these, I am not in a position to say anything more.

Oh Big RR - with all respect, you've been saying that Paul (and the Bible) is wrong on this question. But how can you offer any opinion at all if you do not understand what Paul meant? How does this differ from agnosticism*? Your statement above surely must apply to the entire Bible - you cannot understand what is meant by any of it

I think thestoat, rubato, LJ, Scooter, sean, lo and every other poster on this board understands what this means:

Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob—these people will not inherit God’s kingdom

They may not agree with it - but they know what Paul meant by it. I don't get that you do not know.

But you understand what I mean. Are the following people good candidates for ordaining as bishops in an Episcopal church: a self-confessed idolator who intends to deny God and teach the church to worship Moloch? A self-confessed adulterer who intends to continue adultering since it harms no-one in his opinion? A thief who intends to steal the collection every Sunday? How about a man who announces he loves getting drunk and he's going to be pissed as a newt in the pulpit every Sunday?

I think you must know the answers

Cheers
Meade

*edited to emphasise again that even an agnostic knows what Paul means so perhaps I'm unfair to use that word in this context

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well, Meade, it is clear you have a much greater understanding of the various Christian religions than I have, and I therefore always appreciate your answers Added to Rubato's answer I would say that without the disagreements there would surely not be different churches. An obvious example is that catholics don't believe in contraception - protestants do. Since all their doctrine comes from the same book that surely demonstrates a different emphasis or understanding.

Further, we discussed where the bible contradicted itself. You answered (rather eloquently, (though not satisfactorily - I simply couldn't find the words to express my unease with your answer)) the points I made, but I don't know the bible well enough to be able to quote passages from it. Scooter has given an excellent example of biblical contradiction and I would be very interested in your response to it.

When we discussed the "eye for an eye" versus the "turn the other cheek" you mentioned something about them applying to different slights. I am still uneasy with that answer but will need to think how to put it in to words As ever though, it is good to hear from someone knowledgeable on such things (this applies to pretty much everyone participating here).

Stoat – you say the sweetest things! There are some interesting points raised by you and others.

I think that rubato’s mention of Jews is not really applicable since I understood the context to be Christian denominational differences? But in regard to 4th commandment and dietary restrictions required of Jews, I believe the New Testament removes those obligations. As a practical matter, the early church consisted of Jewish believers who continued to keep the Sabbath – which is why Christian meetings switched to Sunday; Saturday was already taken. Later gentile believers had no Sabbath tradition and were not obligated to follow The Law (religious). At the council of Jerusalem James said “It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood” Acts 15:19-20)

I myself do no “work” on a Sunday – not even my SATS studies – but instead devote the day to worship and to family. I believe Christians “should” do that also. However, it’s not a condition for salvation because man’s works never are. There are many things a Christian “should” do, including believing in God’s word, the Bible. Seventh-Day Adventists have many peculiar fascinations indeed but I’m not all that up on the lunatic fringe.

The old “naughty Christians” argument raised by rubato is just a bunny trail. Men, whether Christians or not, are full of sin and do the most awful things. Not all men of course. And not all are men either. It’s a fact that non-Christians have managed to kill a far greater number of people than Christians ever have – but that’s no recommendation for the church – and Christians developed empirical science, etc. History is not rubato’s favourite tool when it comes to contradict his opinions. However, none of the things he raised are applicable to variant interpretations of the Bible by difference Christian denominations.

Scooter asks a Biblical question (though it too is not an issue of varying emphasis by different denominations). However he must have misunderstood something. Leviticus 20:21 does not mention “widow”. 21 “It is unclean for a man to marry his brother’s wife. That man has shamed his brother, and they will have no children” (NCV) or “And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless” (KJV). The prohibition is against taking a living brother’s wife (presumably causing a divorce) and marrying her. EDITED TO ADD: The word אִשָּׁה (’ishshah) means "wife" not "widow". Widow would be אַלְמָנָה (’almanah).

Levirate marriage on the other hand was designed to protect a childless dead brother’s widow. In order for her to continue enjoying the dead man’s property, his name and his inheritance needed to be preserved. His brother (if able – that is unmarried and willing) was enjoined (but not forced) to marry her and give her the heir that would secure her family position. Deuteronomy 25:5—10.

Indeed, Henry VIII argued the common church misapplication - that Leviticus 20:21 meant he should not have married his dead brother’s wife - and broke with Rome when the Pope refused to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. However, that was the pretext for Henry’s desire to have Anne Boleyn not for the English Reformation which followed the break.

As to the last, yes “eye for an eye” is a judicial restriction declaring that society should not excessively punish nor should it lightly dismiss crimes. “Let the punishment fit the crime” as the Mikado sang. It was not a personal issue – the legal code restricted individual vengeance.

In brief, “turning the other cheek” does not relate to how society is governed. It speaks of the ideal individual Christian response (like Christ’s) to personal insult and injury. Christ points out this difference for those who think they should resort to law (or personal vengeance) to strike back at an offender:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you” (Matt 5:38-42)

Now that's another area where I fall very short

Meade

[Big RR]

Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob—these people will not inherit God’s kingdom

Taking that as what the statement means then no, I do not agree with the statement. So then it is either something that is completely untrue, or something that does not mean what you interpret it to mean.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob—these people will not inherit God’s kingdom

Taking that as what the statement means then no, I do not agree with the statement. So then it is either something that is completely untrue, or something that does not mean what you interpret it to mean.

So as a Christian you are saying that this part of the Bible is not at all true....... OR that you interpret it to mean something other than what it says.

I'm not asking about how I understand the passage but how you understand it. The alternative is not between UNTRUTH and WHAT MEADE THINKS because you just defined them both as wrong.

The two choices I have according to you are either:" (1) the Bible is untrue and male prostitutes do inherit God's kingdom (without changing their beliefs and behaviour because you must read in context) or ....... I don't see another choice according to your statement.

Am I reading you correctly?

Meade

[Big RR]

I'll say this, so far as I understand, men who have sexual relations with other men are not excluded from "the kingdom of god". Whether the statement is wrong or simply misinterpreted I do not know. I believe god welcomes all those who seek him/her/it.

And FWIW, based on one of your earlier posts, do you really believe people can be possessed by demons?

[Andrew D]

But the Bible says that God will judge the nations. Shouldn't we try to construct societies which, as collective entities, reflect the morality which Jesus set forth for us for individuals?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'll say this, so far as I understand, men who have sexual relations with other men are not excluded from "the kingdom of god". Whether the statement is wrong or simply misinterpreted I do not know. I believe god welcomes all those who seek him/her/it.

And FWIW, based on one of your earlier posts, do you really believe people can be possessed by demons?

Fair enough. Do you mean 'mistranslated' by the way? There is only one way to "interpret" a plain statement as you acknowledge in saying about the direct Biblical quote "Taking that as what the statement means then no, I do not agree with the statement". The statement was Paul's. I'd still like to know BTW how you interpret his words in the case of them not being actually "untrue" - how may his words be interpreted in any way other than in what he said?

Now I'm going to apply my interpretation to your words - and you must not be offended if I say what your words appear to me to mean/imply/inescapably reduce to/etc. The phrase I take issue with is "god welcomes all those who seek him/her/it".

The sentence is in itself not objectionable (apart from the him/her/it which is insulting to this Christian). But it must be incomplete. No Christian believes that God welcomed all those who did seek him but continue after "finding" Him to behave in evil ways contrary to His desires, commands and standards of righteousness. (Matt 24:45-50)

As an example, all Christians would believe that a man who has sex with choir boys is not a Christian, no matter how much he in other ways claims to have been born again/saved/found God/prays/sings hymns and gives to the church etc etc. He may be the most wonderful person on earth apart from that one little foible - but God does not just let it slide by. The man is not (yet) a Christian and he is not (yet) saved if he denies the wrongness of his acts and purposes to continues in his life of sin.

If you mean that there is no sin (apart from blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) which God cannot forgive - then I agree with you. But the forgiveness brings with it a desire and a will to change; to no longer steal, murder, commit adultery, lie, cheat, etc etc. Salvation is a three-fold act; saved by Christ's past action from the penalty of sin; saved by Christ's future action from the presence of sin; saved now and ongoingly from the power of sin.

Do you agree (or not) that God does not welcome people who continue brazenly and willfully to defy HIm and go against His will? (In other words, do you believe Jesus or not for he clearly states he will judge and separate the righteous from the unrighteous). Unless of course that's another wrong part of the Bible?

Do I believe that people can be possessed by demons? Yes. Jesus said so. That is, the devil is real and evil spirits are real. FWIW in my speculations: as to "The Exorcist" kind of thing, I doubt very much that evil spirits are often seen to operate in that manner. Far more likely they produce ... Adolf HItler, Gaddafi, Pol Pot, Dawkins, Spong, Stalin It seems to me that "the devil made me do it" has some validity - that is, a spirit of evil finds in a person (me) a particular weakness and enhances its attractiveness so that the person (me) chooses to do what is wrong. The devil doesn't really "make" me do it against my will. But no, I don't confuse mental illness with demon possession although I see no reason why an evil spirit should not enjoy taking advantage of a mentally ill person - humans seem to do that too.

Going back to the original point, I find Romans 1:32 to be a bit bothersome: "They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them". We all deserve to die and we all will. But God will accept some and reject others. Apparently He does have some standards.

Regards
Meade

[Timster]

Oh My! God has standards. Knock me over with a feather, I feel a swoon coming upon me General.

Such as the likes you may regret to witness, sir. For I find myself in a most detestable quandary. On One hand I am enamored with your intelligence and charm. One the other I am confronted with the words from your own pen (so to speak):

And I find them most uncharitable and Unchristian like:

I myself do no “work” on a Sunday – not even my SATS studies – but instead devote the day to worship and to family. I believe Christians “should” do that also. However, it’s not a condition for salvation because man’s works never are. There are many things a Christian “should” do, including believing in God’s word, the Bible. Seventh-Day Adventists have many peculiar fascinations indeed but I’m not all that up on the lunatic fringe.

And when is it all done and said? When and because you said so? It is not sir. {which it is not by any means, because I mean to press the point} and that you have a very peculiar way of showing 'Christian' unity. And interpreting the word of God. Meaning that by "peculiar fascinations" holding true to Biblical truths against popular and mainstream "Christianity" eg Religion? I would not have chosen the apostate faith that blindly follows the Roman Catholic tradition of worshiping Idols and Saints and the keeping of "Sunday" as the Sabbath. Which by ANY scholar's or scientist' reckoning is the FIRST DAY of the week. Which the Bible explicitly forbids in many scriptures.

But most notably in the Fourth commandant.

And If I may be so bold; what did Jesus say about the Law? Not one Jot nor Tittle? Yes 'Context' is everything.

But tell me, sir; Which of the ten Commandments should WE (you and I and good folk like us) Not observe any longer due to the knew covenant/ or dispensation if you prefer? May I screw your wife? May I steal your car?

I am very familiar with the concept of "Legalism!" my good General. But there for the Grace of God go I.

It does not mean that with an imperious wave of the hand that you can wave God's Law away as meaningless.

However, I am willing to back my opinion with scripture (same Bible as yours) that there is a distinct difference between 'Legalism' and 'License' and Grace.

I think we have seen this discussion before... remember?

And I have to be honest here. That excuse for Sunday keeping has got to be the lamest I have Ever encountered.

Peace brother.

Ps: Jesus said that He came to "Fulfill the Law". Think about it.

[Timster]

Oh, And for what it's worth; I have seen and heard your 'jargon'/propaganda before first hand in Lutheran and other protestant services. What they amount to is Catholicism Lite. *spit*

Luther did not throw the 99 feces (bad pun - deal) at Rome for no reason. It was the beginning of the Protestent Reformation!

Which reformation... now seems to be a mere shell of its former self. Sad that. All hail the Pope!@

Remember the Waldensian!

There were people living in the mountains hiding from persecution Meade. Dying for their Faith.

History has all but for gotten. So what? NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

>>>GAH! . *thud*

[Big RR]

But God will accept some and reject others. Apparently He does have some standards.

Be careful Meade, I know you think you know what the standards are, but you may be surprised when you find out what they really are.

[thestoat]

And all of the NT is less than 2000 years old so the plural wouldn't technically be applicable

Actually, technically it would be applicable. Just as you would not say 1.8 thousand tree you would not say 1.8 thousand year or "how many years? 1.8 thousandS". The plural is very much applicable there - technically

the ancient world wasn't filled with stupid people

I think it probably was. Not to say there were not clever people there too, but by modern standards they were stupid. Most couldn't read, most believed the earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it, etc. They were very superstitious and credulous too, believing in leeches to cure all ills, 4 elements, etc etc etc. You could argue "stupid" be replaced by "ill educated", but these days I think the word stupid applies, as it would to someone ill educated nowadays.

[Timster]

Precisely Big RR.

Three words General: Righteousness by Faith. That is God's promise.

Who are We to judge the Faith/Heart of another? Judge not ... Only God can read the Heart.

Slippery slope for the dogmatic.

Call it hedging me bets or whatever you like; I'll take my chances with God.

[loCAtek]

[MajGenl.Meade]

But God will accept some and reject others. Apparently He does have some standards.

Be careful Meade, I know you think you know what the standards are, but you may be surprised when you find out what they really are.

I try to be careful Big RR and I expect to be surprised. But I can read. God has said what the standards are - the dificulty may be in adhering to them (oh, wait - yes it's not possible to adhere to them all perfectly). Perhaps unnecessary but I wish to make it clear that along with others forgiven of every sin, some homosexual people are saved and will be in heaven. But not if having been "saved" they persistently, proudly and unrepentantly continue in their acts of sin and encourage others to accept that sin is not sin. All I have asked of you is a rational, logical explanation of why the Bible, the testaments Old and New, say that homosexual acts are sin and yet you say they are not? So far you have said (if I understand you properly) either the Bible is wrong because you don't agree with it (which undermines the validity of any Biblical statement at all) or that it's right but I don't understand it properly because you don't agree with it. Neither argument is very compelling and neither would be accepted as if the subject were anything other than the Bible. If it is "right" but the problem is my understanding, why not explain how it is "right" and what the true explanation is (that aligns with the rest of the Bible)?

Stoat - the plural referred to is "2,000" - that is, more than one thousand - not "years" - that is, more than one year. Technically and actually the New Testament is not yet "two" thousand years old. It's a mere whippersnapper between 1,945 and 1,905 or so. Let's have a party.

I think it probably was. Not to say there were not clever people there too, but by modern standards they were stupid. Most couldn't read, most believed the earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it, etc. They were very superstitious and credulous too, believing in leeches to cure all ills, 4 elements, etc etc etc. You could argue "stupid" be replaced by "ill educated", but these days I think the word stupid applies, as it would to someone ill educated nowadays.

. So much for the Greeks, the Romans, the Chinese, the Indians and etc. So much for the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World; so much for native cultures of all kinds everywhere. Perhaps most couldn't read - but then again, there wasn't anything to read in many societies - they could do math. And the Old Testament was apparently written and read by people who could do neither? As to the flatness of the earth or the centrality of the sun - people tend to judge by experience and if someone hadn't told you (and me) to the contrary you'd think that too (as would I). Really - your statement is not very useful.

Timster - as ever in your posts I can barely see the wood for the fog . It seems an impression of catholicicity has reached you in my posts? Well I'm all for universals myself so perhaps so. I think I understood you about Luther - his main and early interest was to keep the RC church but with a new and improved Pope that cleaned four times faster. He did not envisage creating a "protestant church". I reject all Popish systems. You were right to chastise me for the phrase "lunatic fringe". That was incorrect of me and careless. 7DA have a peculiar (that is, contrary to the usual non-Jewish) understanding of "the sabbath" but that does not make them less Christian.

Let's get out of paddling in the shallow end and see what it's like in the deep end shall we? Jesus did fulfill the Law. He was the only one who could - no-one else can. We are not obligated to fulfil the Law - which does not mean the moral but the Religious Laws of Moses. We remain obligated to fulfil the moral laws of not stealing. murdering, etc. As to lame excuses for "Sunday keeping", perhaps argumentation rather than characterization would be helpful? Indeed it is common practise for us to call Sunday the first day of the week - so what? God rested on the seventh day - the Bible does not say "Saturday" (hardly likely He'd choose to name it after a much later Roman god I suppose). The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath (check it out); who are you (or I) to say what day really is "the seventh"? Come to think of it, if Jews kept every actual 7th 24-hour day, then it wouldn't always be Saturday anyway would it? The extra Feb 29 every fourth year would put them a day off in actual measured time.

Your point seems to be that we are not Jews; we are freed by Christ from (something); but that because I believe in the teachings of the Bible, I'm supposed to take Saturday off and not Sunday? Who's the legalist then? Read your Bible Timster and I'd be happy to debate real points.

All of the ten commandments are valid.

I also do not judge the state of salvation or the heart of another - that is, as you point out, God's prerogative.

For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? God will judge those outside. “Purge the evil person from your midst.” 1Cor 5:12

. But when a person in a church who claims to be Christian behaves in open and boastfully sinful ways (as defined by the Bible, not by me) then those within the church are to judge that person's acts and deal with them. Jesus explained both the necessity and the methods of doing so in Matt 18:15-17.

And before someone trots out "Judge not that ye be not judged" please continue reading - "for by that judgement you also will be judged". Jesus' warning is to avoid applying a double standard of one thing to someone else but different towards oneself. Jesus judged very carefully between the person and the wrongful act and he asks every person to look at themselves and remove the sin from their own lives. One cannot wilfully persist in sin, enjoining others to accept the sin and endorse it, and claim to be following Christ's example!

God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us (Rom 5:8) but "if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries (Heb 10:26-27)

.

I think these bishops were right to leave an organization which has abandoned Biblical faith while claiming that its faith is based on the Bible. I think they were wrong to join a church that believes in papal authority and other non-Biblical things (such as Mary's immaculate conception, church tradition as valid as scripture, non-marriage of priests, praying to saints, Mary as intercessor between man and Jesus and so on). I have no idea if believing those kinds of things is an impediment to salvation - God's problem; not mine.

Interesting stuff - I appreciate all your views
Meade

[Gob]

Where does the bible say homosexuality is a sin? Or has this been covered?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Where does the bible say homosexuality is a sin? Or has this been covered?

Well it's been exposed a little

Le 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. You shall not have sexual relations with any animal and defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it: it is perversion.

Le 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes a wife and her mother also, it is depravity; they shall be burned to death, both he and they, that there may be no depravity among you. If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and has sexual relations with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them

(Killing the animal seems a little unfair)


1 Co 6:9-11
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Rom 1:26-32
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

1 Tim 1:8-10
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching

Fortunately Big RR will be able to explain to us how he knows that all the above sections of the Bible are untrue - or that I don't properly understand what they mean


Cheers
Meade

[thestoat]

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God

That is a shame ... would be nice to inherit it ... though of course we have to wait for god to die first. And I hope inheritance tax isn't too onerous

[Timster]

Thank you General for that generous assessment of what I wrote.

And believe me when I say; that I believe also that what you believe is not what I believe. Not that I believe that what you believe is false, incorrect, misguided and does not stand open to extreme interpretation... but it shall be so.
I mean to say discussed.
Because I believe that literal interpretation has its limits regarding allegory. However.\ Holy Scripture does seem to contradict itself until one takes the time and effort to confront one's pre-conceived notions.

Indeed my good man. I can and will obfuscate with the best. But I remain confident that a workmanship investigation will prove that while certain contradictions may exist that certain tangibles(?) cannot be dismissed.

I look forward to your defense of Catholic "Lite".

Game on Sir.

and now the can of worms has been opened...