Video: For the Bible Tells Me Whatever The Hell I Want It To
If you reconcile your belief in a large, much-debated, man-interpreted book filled with scores of oft-ignored condemnations and teachings with your belief that a certain population sect is wicked, immoral, and in need of "change," then you are Godly. If you reconcile your belief in a large, much-debated, man-interpreted book filled with scores of oft-ignored condemnations and teachings with your acceptance of gay people, then you're JUST PLAIN WRONG. Such is the state of modern evangelism:
::sigh:: Why must there always be such a clear-cut delineation between pro-gay "propaganda" and anti-gay "certainty"? Our side raises points in order to provoke conversation and promote reasoned considerations, while the other side prefers the "I'm right and you're wrong, now let me stick my fingers in my ears so that I can't hear what you're saying -- LA, LA, LA, LA, LA" method of rational theological discussion. And they take such smug satisfaction in their "case closed" mentalities.
It reminds us of the bully kid who used to always emphatically tell us that Super Mario Bros. was without a doubt a better game than Zelda, whereas we saw the matter as one that was open to and even emboldened by discourse. Except, of course, where the stakes in that Reagan era gamey situation only concerned which blonde princess we'd spend our afternoon saving, the stakes in this modern era game of Godly Monopoly are much more impactive. So since the risks and rewards are so high, we encourage everyone who has a sense of certitude vis-à-vis their Biblical reasons for disliking gay people to do us all a favor and just consider for one second that they might not have all the answers. Admitting that there is room for middle ground is the only way we're ever going to defeat Bowser and save Princes Peach make inroads towards peace.
For The Bible DOES Tell Me So [YouTube]
**For The Bible Tells Me So clip and trailer posted after the jump:
His idea that Moral Laws and Dietary Laws are different is just not true, in both cases the Bible calls it a abomination. If you take the Bible literally, I don't think you can be consistent, which is why as a Christian I believe you take what is useful, and go from there.
Same old argument of comparing Homosexuality to Murderers, a very weak argument, one harms other people, the other is something that is very natural for those of us who are Homosexuals or have same sex attractions.
"you can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out God hates all the same people you do"
Posted by: Rob | Feb 27, 2008 1:04:59 PM
"your belief that a certain population sect in wicked, immoral, and in need of"
should probably be:
"your belief that a certain population sect is wicked, immoral, and in need of"
Its a tough crowd out there today, Jeremy. But just think of it as owning a self-correcting website.
Posted by: dave b. | Feb 27, 2008 1:06:33 PM
Your copy edits are always appreciated, Dave.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 27, 2008 1:10:19 PM
Well, Rob, the problem is that your reasoning is clearly fallacious if you think about it. In your argument is the basic claim that "law" is "law" and there is no difference (i.e., abomination is abomination). Ok, but when was the last time someone asked for or even got the death penalty for speeding? Law is law, right? So does murder 1 merit the same punishment as a speeding ticket just because they are both violations of the "law"? Nonsense. The same is true of things called "abomination" in the Bible. So please, stop with the nonsensical and irrational arguments.
There are clear reasons why some laws are still in affect today and others are not. Most of them are Biblical if you truly know the Bible well.
And the comparison argument you call "weak" is a Biblical one. So your ignorance of the Bible is showing. And I wish you guys would stop with the robotic rhetoric about "hate" and so forth. I never said or even inferred lightly that I "hate" anyone in my video. So, please...let's drop the rhetoric and at least pretend to use some kind of reason and thought.
Posted by: CRoadwarrior | Mar 1, 2008 3:47:25 AM
Please provide verses and scripture for the laws that are no longer in place. Since Jesus said he never came to change the law, but to fullfill the law.
Also provide scripture where the Bible seperates Dietary and Moral law, and how one is no longer in place.
I want Biblical verses, not doctrine or rhetroic.
Posted by: Rob | Mar 3, 2008 8:24:11 PM
Ok, Rob. Not that it will do any good to change your views, but here are some of the facts.
First, Jesus did not say He did not come to "change" the law. The text in Matt. 5:17 says He spoke of not destroying or overthrowing the law. He came to fulfill it. But that does not mean that things don't change. Fulfill means to do what we could not do. We could not keep the law perfectly before God. But He did. He fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law (Romans 8:3,4). So, it's not about "law" but grace and truth, which were brought by Jesus (John 1:17). The law doesn't save, as one of its primary purposes was to reveal sin (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16) Another purpose of the law was bringing us to the realization that we need a savior from sin - Christ (Galatians 3:19-25).
The fact that one law (or group of laws) speaks to diet and is called a "Dietary" law and can be distinguished from "you shall not murder" (a moral law) is, or should be, axiomatic. The Bible doesn't have to say "this is a dietary law and this other is a moral law" because it should be clear to any rational and thinking person.
As for the dietary laws not holding relevance for today, you might want to read 1 Timothy 4:4,5.
Now along with all the passages I referenced (there are more), it should be clear that the law and the laws of Moses were never meant to be obeyed perfectly since no ordinary human can perfectly obey them before God. So Jesus had to come bringing grace, mercy and truth in a way the Moses couldn't so that salvation could be accomplished.
You have been given Biblical verse that inform sound Christian doctrine. What you do with it is up to you. The main point is, my video clearly shows the biased agenda of those who made the film, since they made no serious attempt to address the issue in a fair and balanced manner. It was propaganda.
Posted by: CRoadwarrior | Aug 8, 2008 7:13:54 PMcomments powered by Disqus