Saturday, May 1, 2010

Musings: Back to Traditions

A big rain had just passed, leaving behind wet grass and glistening leaves when Koko and I went out walking this morning. The moon, with a sizable chunk already nibbled away, hung low in the southern sky, fading to white with the arrival of dawn.

Delightful fragrances lingered in the thick air, reminding me that it is May Day-Lei Day, and mist rose and swirled above the still sleeping Giant. In the distance, waterfalls streaked down Makaleha and Waialeale’s flat, gray-blue summit was visible through a dreamy, rose-tinted haze.

“Ugh,” pronounced my neighbor Andy in response to the mugginess. “It feels like summer is here.”

But I knew that wasn’t true, because if it were, I’d be headed down to the beach already instead of sitting in my house with a sweatshirt on, waiting for the day to warm up.

Things already are heating up in the governor’s office as folks on both sides of the civil-unions debate attempt to sway Lingle’s decision on the bill passed in a surprise, last-minute vote by the House on Thursday.

Those opposed to the bill admit they got complacent when the measure was shelved by the House after passing the Senate earlier in the session. So now they’re making up for lost time by laying it on thick with Lingle, who has the power to either veto the bill or let it stand.

I’m fascinated by the way the religious zealots have justified their opposition to a bill aimed at providing equality, as reported by The Advertiser:

Dennis Arakaki, the executive director of the Hawai'i Family Forum and the Hawai'i Catholic Conference, said religious conservatives and others who want to preserve traditional marriage will be fired up.

"This is not about the church against gays," he said. "It's actually about people standing up for traditional marriage."

But just how traditional are they talking about here? While doing a Google search on marriage, I found a definition provided by the Bible Dictionary , which I presume is the one they might want to follow, seeing as how the Bible is supposed to be God’s take on all subjects, right? And it states:

It seems to have been the practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen. 24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the maiden (Ex. 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted (Gen. 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was bound to give a price to the father of the maiden (31:15; 34:12; Ex. 22:16, 17; 1 Sam. 18:23, 25; Ruth 4:10; Hos. 3:2)

I’m not sure how many American women today, even the Bible bangers, would go for that one, or endorse the prescribed roles of each marriage partner, as outlined in Fausset´s Bible Dictionary:

Love, honor, and cherishing are his duty; helpful, reverent subjection, a meek and quiet spirit, her part; both together being heirs of the grace of life

Are any women — other than those being paid by Johns to play such a role — still into “reverent subjection?”

The Bible Dictionary also talks about how monogamy is the cornerstone of marriage, a concept that I imagine most gays seeking such a union would endorse, and mentions:

Marriage is said to be "honourable" (Heb. 13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate times (1 Tim. 4:3).

So does that mean that prohibiting gays from getting married is actually more degenerate than allowing them to marry?

If only God had been a little more clear….

What isn’t clear is whether Lingle will sign the bill and distinguish her governorship by doing one great thing; veto it and add another item to her long list of screw-ups, or conveniently go off island so da Duke, as acting governor, can make big political hay by vetoing the bill.

In the meantime, I can’t understand why in the world The Advertiser isn’t allowing comments on the two stories it’s published on this very important issue. What’s up with that?


Anonymous said...

How's this for God's clarity:

ROMANS 1:24-27:
"24 Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, 25 even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."

Although the "minor problem" some have is with marriage being defined by God as between 1 man and 1 woman, the "major problem" is in gayness itself.

God indeed loves all, but hates certain practices and will not withhold exercising his justice (real bad news for such practitioners) for those unwilling to change.

In the end, it's God's way or the highway. Buckle up...a real theocracy is coming.

Anonymous said...

Paul also thought slavery was fine and dandy.

Paul was a dick head.

And anyway, right after your quoted passage, Paul wrote:

Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (King James Version)

Or as Williams rendered the passage:

"At whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself."

Anonymous said...

I'm not in the judgement biz...God is...and there's no appeals, no stays.

You're in or you're out. And being gay is, by His own words, definitely out.

I personally don't care if they get civil unionized or doesn't change the eventual outcome.

Anonymous said...

"This is not about the church against gays,"

That's exactly what its about.

Anonymous said...

"This is not about the church against gays," he said. "It's actually about [not wanting to find out 25% of our priests are gay]."


Anonymous said...

Know how to make a nun pregnant?

Dress her up as an alter boy!

Anonymous said...

Sign on priest's Rectory building:

"All deliveries in rear"

Anonymous said...

You're in or you're out. And being gay is, by His own words, definitely out.

That's what Muslims think too. You and them should get together and figure it all out together.

Meanwhile, luckily, basing laws on religious belief is unconstitutional in this country so I doesn't make one rip what you or Muslims think is sinful.

Anonymous said...

Posting on Facebook:

So, Larry King is getting his 8th divorce, and Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time. Jesse James and Tiger Woods are, well... you know... Even Newt Gingrich is on his 3rd marriage. Britney Spears was married exactly 55 hours on a whim. Yet the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy what... the institution of marriage? REALLY?!?

Anonymous said...

I thought your god told you not to judge others...enjoy his hypocrisy or your own, whatever.

Dawson said...

Dennis Arakaki, the executive director of the Hawai'i Family Forum and the Hawai'i Catholic Conference, said religious conservatives and others who want to preserve traditional marriage will be fired up.

"This is not about the church against gays," he said. "It's actually about people standing up for traditional marriage."

Translation: "My religion, sexual orientation and sexual morality are superior to yours. I have it on authority from the One True God that my opinion on these matters is inviolable, and therefore I am justified in enforcing my dominion over you."

Anonymous said...

God hates shellfish, too. Oysters are an abomination:

Leviticus 11:9-12:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Anonymous said...

I'm not in the judgement biz...God is...and there's no appeals, no stays.

You're in or you're out. And eating tako and poke, by His own words, definitely out.

hip hip hooray said...

Thank God I'm out . Enjoy the poke and the shell fish, and don't forget the pork............. Jewish dietary guide lines ............ how the hell that makes them God edict scriptures is beyond me....... Oh that's right, they wrote the scriptures proclaiming themselves God's chosen people........... and then many many years later the Catholics at the council of Nikea decided what would and wouldn't be God's Holy Words. With guidance like that how can we possibly go wrong.

Anonymous said...

Ahi poke is in. Tako poke is out. And it doesn't matter if you use shoyu mustard or chili pepper water.

Anonymous said...

I am sure glad I was actually out there, protesting in support of civil unions. I'm also glad I was out there protesting in opposition to closing the DHS offices. It's great to be involved.

What sucks is when there is a meeting about something that you actually started protesting about first, someone writes an article about it, and they don't even mention what you and your supporters did.

{G.I writer Leo).

Now that can suck. But I'm still glad I did it.

Yay for our side. Theocratical losers? Hit the road

hip hip hooray said...

No ahi poke is out as well, because tuna do not have scales........ the absurdity of it all!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Unless you believe in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church, then there is no reason whatsoever to accept that the Bible is the "Word of God" in any literal sense.

Anonymous said...

So before the Bible, when all of this unnatural lusting took place, how did one know that God hated certain practices? Were these unnatural types able to engage in these activities and still get into heaven? It doesn't seem fair that they could get a pass.

Anonymous said...

We hadn't invented heaven yet.

Anonymous said...

The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the definitive source of Biblical knowledge.

Many, if not most, of their core beliefs are not found anywhere in the Bible (trinity, Hell, eternal soul for examples).

Most are retooling of pagan beliefs (Christmas, Easter, trinity, etc.)

This can be validated in a variety of secular sources.

In fact, the Bible points to Catholicism as the main "false religion" denoted as "Babylon the Great".

Anonymous said...

Many, if not most, of their (Catholics) core beliefs are not found anywhere in the Bible (trinity, Hell, eternal soul for examples).

Uh, you forgot one example: Bible inerrancy. The Catholics invented that notion as well. So, unless you believe Catholic core beliefs, there's no reason to believe that the Bible is anything other than man-made.

hip hip hooray said...

The Bible points to nothing. Period , end of story. It does make one relevant point in admitting that the Kingdom of Heaven is within, but other than that it is/
was nothing more than recycled texts trying to piece together some structure of conformity and social order, however well or ill intended. That and a little spiritual history, A fascinating text was found some 10 to 20 years ago and brought to light a few years ago which could've, would've should've been called the Book of judas. It got very little air play, most likely because it completely turned on it's head the idea of Judas as the evil badboy betrayer. He was apparently Jesus' closest devotee and friend who was possibly let in on or imparted some secret knowledge not shown to all. He was mortified for his task of betrayal but Jesus trusted no one else to carry out what had to be done. Very interesting, read a couple of articles in the media and then it just dropped off the radar screen.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the gospel of Judas is no earlier than late second century and is a Gnostic work that is certainly a fiction. (Not that the canonical gospels aren't also largely fictive - but Judas is much older than they are). It has nothing factual to say about Jesus or Judas but is fascinating as a historical Gnostic document (Gnosticism was eventually decreed heretical by the Roman Catholic Church and many Gnostic documents were consequently destroyed).

Anonymous said...

but Judas is much older than they are

"Later." Not "older."

Anonymous said...

"Many, if not most, of their (Catholics) core beliefs are not found anywhere in the Bible (trinity, Hell, eternal soul for examples).

Uh, you forgot one example: Bible inerrancy. The Catholics invented that notion as well. So, unless you believe Catholic core beliefs, there's no reason to believe that the Bible is anything other than man-made."
Not so. I believe the entire Bible is the inspired word of God and that the Catholics do very little to properly use or represent it.

They have added "philosophies of men", primarily to amass wealth and power.

The Bible and Catholicism have very little in common.

Even the encyclopedias say so.

Entire religions have been founded on a few verses taken out of context and then comingled with "philosophies of men". That's why there are over 6,000 supposedly Bible-based religions in existence.

The broad and spacious road leading off into destruction...

Anonymous said...

Not so. I believe the entire Bible is the inspired word of God and that the Catholics do very little to properly use or represent it.

Just because you believe the entire Bible is the inspired word of God doesn't change the fact that the Roman Catholic Church invented that idea.

Anonymous said...

The Catholic Church didn't invent the idea of the Bible being infallible.

2Timothy 3:16-17 reads:

16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

That "church of false religion" did, in fact, come up with the idea of Papal infallibility...more bunk.

In fact, the Bible doesn't even recommend a clergy class...another invention of man.

Mt 23:6-10 but especially verse 9:

6 They [religious leaders of the times] like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues, 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. 8 But YOU, do not YOU be called Rabbi, for one is YOUR teacher, whereas all YOU are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ.

Anonymous said...

What is meant by "all scripture" in 2 Timothy? Not the New Testament, because there was as yet no such thing. Sorry, but Paul was a Jew through and through and he was talking strictly about the Torah and the Prophets of the "Old Testament" (as Christians are wont to call it) and not even about Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Chronicles, Daniel, Ecclesiastes, etc (the 'Writings') because in Paul's time they had not yet become canonized.

So you don't get to piggy-back a bunch of later writings (almost all of the New Test) on a comment Paul made about the Jewish canon as it existed when Paul lived.

Well, I mean, you do get to if you want. But we can see how silly it is.

Anonymous said...

2 Tim was completed in 65 CE. Including that, 20 of the 27 books comprising the Christian-Greek Scriptures referred to by many as the New Testament were completed by that date. It is reasonable to assume that Paul was familiar with all previously-written books.

So his "all scriptures are inspired" verse certainly does apply to them. And, besides, since these are the words of God transcribed, as done by a secretary, by the Bible writers, we believe it to be true.

Paul started out a Jew but forsook that and became a Christian, as did most other first century Christians. The Mosaic Law was no longer in effect, having been fulfilled by Christ. The Jews were no longer considered by God as his chosen people.

The concept of "canon" wasn't introduced until centuries later.

Dawson said...

Everybody wants to be an art director
Everybody wants to call the shots
Everybody wants to be a flag dissector
Changing all my stars to polka dots
Everybody thinks that they're the final word
On what is strictly out and what is in!

- Stan Freberg

Anonymous said...

First of all, 2Timothy wasn't even written by Paul but was written decades after Paul's death. (I know - Biblical conservatives don't believe any of Paul's letters weren't written by him for the circular reason that each letter says it is by Paul and biblical conservatives believe the Bible is inerrant).

Aside from that, there simply was no agreed upon NT scriptural canon for at least two centuries after Paul's death. So, even if Paul did write 2Tim there was nothing for him to be referring to but Jewish scripture.

After all, none of the writings that eventually became the New Test (no early than 3 centuries after the formation of the Christian church) claims to be "scripture" or inerrant or of divine origin. As egotistical and shamelessly willing to invent theological orthodoxy, usually in opposition to Jesus' own teachings, as Paul appears to have been, even he never claimed the status of "scripture" for his letters to the churches.

Anonymous said...

Being a "Biblical conservative", your position is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Two inspired letters of the Christian Greek Scriptures addressed to Timothy by the apostle Paul, who identifies himself as the writer in the opening words of each letter. (1Ti 1:1; 2Ti 1:1) The first letter was evidently written from Macedonia. A basis for assigning an approximate date for the composition of this letter is found in the first chapter, verse 3, which reads: “Just as I encouraged you to stay in Ephesus when I was about to go my way into Macedonia, so I do now.” There is no mention of this in the book of Acts, which covers a period from the time of Jesus’ ascension to heaven in 33 C.E. until the second year of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, about 61 C.E. Accordingly, it seems that it was sometime after his being released that Paul encouraged Timothy to stay in Ephesus, and then Paul apparently departed for Macedonia. This would place the time for the writing of First Timothy between the date of the apostle’s release from his first imprisonment at Rome and his final imprisonment there, or about 61-64 C.E. The second letter was composed at Rome during Paul’s final imprisonment (likely c. 65 C.E.) and not long before his death.—2Ti 1:8, 17; 4:6-9.

hip hip hooray said...

Bottom line....... scripture , all scripture, has no real relevance in life except to confuse and divert attention from the Truth, which is found within. Case in point, look at this debate / discussion, it reveals nothing, yet goes on and on.......... somewhat entertaining though

Anonymous said...

Hence, the narrow road, few sill find it.

It takes serious dedication and digging. How many commenter to this thread have actually read it cover to cover? I'm on my 4th pass.

Acts 20:30 - and from among YOU yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.

Eph 4:17-19:  This, therefore, I say and bear witness to in [the] Lord, that YOU no longer go on walking just as the nations also walk in the unprofitableness of their minds, 18 while they are in darkness mentally, and alienated from the life that belongs to God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the insensibility of their hearts. 19 Having come to be past all moral sense, they gave themselves over to loose conduct to work uncleanness of every sort with greediness.

And with that, my contribution to this thread ends, having started by answering Joan's question: "If only God had been a little more clear….". He is...if you look hard enough and don't take verses out of total context or cherry-pick to attempt to support your predetermined position.

Sorry gays...but you have my permission to get married meaningless in the eyes of God as it is. But your interest is more in the eyes of fed/state benefits, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Being a "Biblical conservative", your position is wrong.

May 3, 2010 8:13 AM

being Atheist you are all wrong, quit judging your fellow man or women on some antiquated belief system that supported slavery.

Anonymous said...

I read the Brothers Grimm's fairy tales. Watch out for step mothers and gingerbread houses. And whatever you do, don't take food to grandma's house in the woods!

Anonymous said...

The Mosaic Law was no longer in effect, having been fulfilled by Christ. The Jews were no longer considered by God as his chosen people.

Either you are wrong or your god is a liar. Better read your Bible again. Four times apparently wasn't enough.

Psalm 111:5-9

"He has given food to those who revere Him;
He will remember His covenant forever.
He has made known to His people the power of His works,
In giving them the heritage of the nations.

The works of His hands are true and just;
All His precepts are certain.
They are upheld forever and ever;
They are carried out in truth and uprightness.

He has sent deliverance to His people;
He has ordained His covenant forever;
Holy and awesome is His name."

Psalm 105:8-11, 45

He has remembered His covenant forever,
The word which He ordered to a thousand generations,

The covenant that He made with Abraham,
And His oath to Isaac.

Then He confirmed it to Jacob as a statute,
To Israel as a covenant everlasting,

Saying, "To you I shall give the land of Canaan,
As the portion of your inheritance,"

....In order that they shall keep His statutes and observe His laws,
Praise the L-RD!

Psalm 119:44 "So I will keep Your Torah - continually forever and ever."

Psalm 119:111-112 "I have inherited Your testimonies forever, for they are the joy of my heart. For I have inclined my heart to do Your statutes forever, unto the end."

Psalm 119:144 "Your testimonies are forever right; Grant me understanding that I may live."

Psalm 119:152 "From long ago I have known your testimonies, that You have established them forever."

Keep in mind - Whenever reading any verses in the Hebrew Bible (aka 'Old Testament'), read them with the historical context in mind. For example, at the time King David wrote the Psalms, much of the rest of the Hebrew Bible was not yet written. Therefore, any references he makes should be understood in the context of those books which were already written, which he had in his hands.

Leviticus 3:17 "It is a law forever throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.."

Leviticus 6:18 "it is a permanent law throughout all your generations.."

Leviticus 6:22 "by an eternal ordinance it shall be entirely offered.."

Leviticus 7:36 "it is an eternal law for their generations."

Leviticus 16:34 "Now this is to you an everlasting ordinance.."

Leviticus 16:29 "This is to you a permanent law.."

Leviticus 17:7 "This is to them for an everlasting law in all their generations.."

Leviticus 23:14 "is to you a perpetual ordinance in all your dwelling places throughout your generations.."

Numbers 15:15 "As for the community (of Israel), there shall be one law for you and for the one who converted and joined with you; An eternal Law throughout your generations, as you are, so shall the convert be before the ALL-TRANSCENDENT One."

Numbers 19:21 "So it is a law forever for them.."

Anonymous said...

Pulling me out of "retirement" on this thread one more time, eh?'s the scoop, from the Christian Greek scriptures, of course.

The Mosaic Law covenant was abolished on the basis of Christ’s death on the torture stake (Col 2:14), and the new covenant became operative at Pentecost, 33 C.E. (Compare Ac 2:4; Heb 2:3, 4.) Nevertheless, God extended special favor to the Jews about three and a half years longer. During this time Jesus’ disciples confined their preaching to Jews, Jewish proselytes, and Samaritans. But about 36 C.E. God directed Peter to go to the home of the Gentile Cornelius, a Roman army officer, and by pouring out His holy spirit on Cornelius and his household, showed Peter that Gentiles could now be accepted for water baptism. (Ac 10:34, 35, 44-48) Since God no longer recognized the Law covenant with the circumcised Jews but now recognized only his new covenant mediated by Jesus Christ, natural Jews, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, were not considered by God as being in any special relationship with him. They could not attain to a status with God by observing the Law, which was no longer valid, nor by John’s baptism, which had to do with the Law, but were obliged to approach God through faith in his Son and be baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ in order to have God’s recognition and favor.

Consequently, after 36 C.E., all, Jews and Gentiles, have had the same standing in God’s eyes. (Ro 11:30-32; 14:12) The people of the Gentile nations, except for those who had been circumcised Jewish proselytes, were not in the Law covenant and had never been a people having a special relationship with God the Father. Now the opportunity was extended to them as individuals to become God’s people. Before they could be baptized in water they, therefore, had to come to God as believers in his Son Jesus Christ. Then, according to Christ’s example and command, they would properly submit to water baptism.—Mt 3:13-15; 28:18-20.

Relative to references to this occurance in the Hebrew scriptures, the prophecy at Daniel 9:24-27 (the "seventy weeks or years") points to the appearance of the Messiah at the start of the 70th “week” of years (Da 9:25) and his sacrificial death in the middle or “at the half” of the final week, thereby ending the validity of the sacrifices and gift offerings under the Law covenant. (Da 9:26, 27; compare Heb 9:9-14; 10:1-10.) This would mean a ministry of three and a half years’ duration (half of a “week” of seven years) for Jesus Christ.

Basically, Christian living is based more on the application of Biblical principals rather than on well over 600 specific "laws" characterized by the Law Covenant, although there are certain specific do's and dont's laid out in the Christian Greek scriptures.

The whole Mosaic Law thing was done as a foreshadow of Christ, allowing the Jews to recognize the Messiah....but as we all know, most Jews did not back then and caused his death. Jews today are still looking in vain for the Messiah, not recognizing that their covenant as God's people ended almost 2,000 years ago.

Now...if you want to continue, open a blog specifically for this type of discussion and it may fill up fast...or not.

Anonymous said...

PS to my entry above:

The Hebrew scriptures and laws and festivals and other practices were sufficient to allow Jews to recognize Christ as the Messiah.

But they didn't, exercising free will and freedom of choice, which God gives everyone.

Because they didn't, their covenant, which had a chance to stand forever, did not, and a new covenant was created.

Free will and choice interacts with the outworking of God's will and sometimes causes it to detour, shall we say.

For example, if Adam and Eve hadn't sinned in Eden (free choice), Christ would never have had to come to earth to die for our sins, since we would be perfect decedents of Adam and Eve, not the flawed creatures we are today.

There are other instances where God "changed his mind", so to speak, such as not destroying a city he was going to destroy because the people there "got their minds right".

But, overall, God's purposes are being worked out in His own time and His own way.

As for mankind today, Jer 10:23 states it well:

"I well know that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step."

That's why things are unraveling at a faster and faster rate throughout the earth...certainly not getting better. These are signs of the times (2Tim 3:1-5 and others)

Anonymous said...

the Mosaic Law covenant was abolished

You can't have it both ways. If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then either Mosaic law was not abolished because God promised that it was eternal.

I don't blame you for getting tied up here and picking and choosing those passages that happen to flatter your own personal beliefs. The Bible is so riddled with internal inconsistencies that one really has no other choice. And that's a natural outcome of what the Bible is: a collection of historical documents over a long period of time reflecting the various interests of those who wrote them in the time that they wrote them. Your beliefs are unavoidably contemporary and have nothing to do with what Jesus believed or what the Apostles believed or what Paul believed or which any Pope believed or which Calvin believed or Augustine or Origen or anyone else that came before you.

Anonymous said...

They have everything to do with what Jesus believed. As to Calvin, et al...and especially Augustine, not so much.

Col 2:16-17 indicates that Jesus fulfulled the "shadow" of the law:

16 Therefore let no man judge YOU in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a sabbath; 17 for those things are a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ.

Heb 10:1 indicates that, indeed, the law was a "shadow":

For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, [men] can never with the same sacrifices from year to year which they offer continually make those who approach perfect.

The Law Covenant was "then"...the "new covenant" is now.

This was even seen in the Hebrew scriptures.

Jer 31:31-32:
31 “Look! There are days coming,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 32 not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt.

Paul explained this to the Jews in Heb 8:7-13. Hebrews was a book specifically written for and to the Jews:

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second; 8 for he does find fault with the people when he says: “‘Look! There are days coming,’ says Jehovah, ‘and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their forefathers in [the] day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant, so that I stopped caring for them,’ says Jehovah.”
10 “‘For this is the covenant that I shall covenant with the house of Israel after those days,’ says Jehovah. ‘I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I shall write them. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people.
11 “‘And they will by no means teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: “Know Jehovah!” For they will all know me, from [the] least one to [the] greatest one of them. 12 For I shall be merciful to their unrighteous deeds, and I shall by no means call their sins to mind anymore.’”
13 In his saying “a new [covenant]” he has made the former one obsolete. Now that which is made obsolete and growing old is near to vanishing away.

Mt 23:37-37 is God's final word on the subject:

37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her,—how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings! But YOU people did not want it. 38 Look! YOUR house is abandoned to YOU. 39 For I say to YOU, YOU will by no means see me from henceforth until YOU say, ‘Blessed is he that comes in God’s name!’”

I am confident that there is no internal inconsistancy in the Bible here, nor anywhere else.

God has every right (it's his universe, after all) to replace one covenant with another. Based on their actions, the Jew's "house" (as God's favored people" was abandoned to them.

It didn't have to be that way, but it was and the appropriate course correction was made to continue the fulfillment of God's purpose for mankind.

You have your beliefs...I have mine.

Anonymous said...

God has every right (it's his universe, after all) to replace one covenant with another.

If that's so, then God lied because he told the Jews the Covenant with them was eternal. But wait, God can't lie, omfg, it's a biblical inconstancy!

So, are you sure your beliefs about gays are what Jesus believed? I'm not sure how you'd know.

Anonymous said...

Covenants imply obligations placed on both parties. It would have been eternal IF the Jews hadn't "breached the contract" so to speak.

Otherwise, the implication would be that the Jews would be God's chosen people forever and the Law would stand forever regardless of what the did or didn't do...that would be crazy.

No inconsistancy.

Gays are still out.

Nice try, though.

Anonymous said...

It would have been eternal IF the Jews hadn't "breached the contract"

I think you're confusing the Mosaic covenant with the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. Unlike the Mosaic covenant which was conditioned on obedience, those covenants rest upon divine grace alone and impose no conditions whatsoever on any humans.

Abrahamic covenant - everlasting possession of the land, numerous posterity, and the everlasting relationship of God and People between God and the descendants of Abraham and Sarah. No strings attached. Even if the people act like a bunch of turds.

Davidic covenant - promise of an unbroken succession of kings upon the throne of David, no conditions, no questions asked. Unfaithful kings WILL be chastised if they behave badly (by God, no less - no small threat one imagines) but God promised never to abrogate the covenant promises of grace made to David.

And even though the Mosaic covenant was conditioned on obedience of the law, nowhere at the time the covenant was made or any time thereafter was there any condition that the people would be confronted with a messiah that they had to then accept as God. Under those circumstances, if anyone broke the covenant it was God.

Anyway, this seems like a lot of mental calisthenics on your part just to reassure yourself that homosexuals are condemned.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I didn't have to go this far for that determination at all. It's laid out plainly in just a couple of scriptures.

Marriage is one man and one woman. Sex outside of marriage is fornication. Homosexual relations of any kind is fornication.

Black and white...End of story...for those affected, of course.

Anonymous said...

Marriage is one man and one woman. Sex outside of marriage is fornication. Homosexual relations of any kind is fornication.

Black and white...End of story...for those affected, of course.

Same with eating shell fish. So you'd say then that homosexuality is one of those things (like eating shell fish) that for whatever unfathomable reason irks God about His Creation. But he's not going to send anyone to hell over it, and any "Christian" would not think any the less of someone for doing it.

Anonymous said...

The shell fish thing was part of the old Law that was done away with...haven't you been keeping up?

There are no dietary restrictions anymore, other than the consumption of blood.

Anonymous said...

The shell fish thing was part of the old Law that was done away with...haven't you been keeping up?

There are no dietary restrictions anymore, other than the consumption of blood.

Divorce then. Jesus absolutely condemned divorce in several places in the NT. Jesus never said squat about gays. So, surely in your scripture-informed opinion, Divorced people are even more condemned than Gay people. (You've never been divorced, have you? Hope not for your soul's sake)

Anonymous said...

ROMANS 1:24-27, which was my first (the first) comment on this thread is one instance of the Bible's anti-gay belief. Haven't you been following??? I know it was 49 comments ago, but really...

As to divorce, neither of us has been and we are celebrating our 35th anniversary this month.

The Bible states that any divorce on any grounds other than fornication is unscriptural.

Unscripturally divorced people are not free to remarry. Doing so will constitute fornication.

Mt 5:31-32:
31 “Moreover it was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 However, I say to YOU that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

MT 19:3-9:
3 And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” 4 In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.” 7 They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Moses, out of regard for YOUR hardheartedness, made the concession to YOU of divorcing YOUR wives, but such has not been the case from [the] beginning. 9 I say to YOU that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.”

Anonymous said...

Uh oh, I'm an adulterer! But I wasn't married in a Christian church, so technically, was I (or am I) married? If not, am I a fornicator or adulterer?

Anonymous said...

"Marriage" is considered valid if performed and recorded under the laws of any given land. Doesn't even have to be in any church. Civil ceremonies are OK.

Of course, the assumes the married partners don't fall into any of the categories mentioned above.

"Adultery" is a subset of "fornication", as are pretty much any other things done by two people involving each other's genitals when not within the friendly confines of a scriptural marriage.

Many other behaviors fall into the category of "loose conduct", another activity Biblically frowned upon.

I're all chuckling...but millions of people do strive to live by what some may consider fundimentalist Bible principles and have not caved into the shifting sands or present-day norms or "morality".

None of that "everything's good" and "God loves everybody no matter what we do" stuff.

We may not be the most popular folks, but we don't care...The Bible does admonish us to "be no part of the world".

To each his/her own. We all have freedom of choice...just not the freedom to define our own consequences for our actions.

Anonymous said...

Is that you, George Alan Reker? You really know your Bible passages.

Anonymous said...

What happened to the untold millions who were never exposed to the "word of God" because of history or geography? Were these people condemned merely because Christians failed to get the word out? What about soldiers who kill people? Are they all condemned for violating one of the Ten Commandments?

Anonymous said...

Unexposed ones get a second chance, so to speak, in God's 1,000 year millennial reign (after Armageddon, while Satan is abyssed for that time). This is part of the resurrection of "the righteous and the unrighteous".

Soldiers, if never exposed to the truth, also will get a second chance.

If given a chance to learn it, but refusing, or quitting after some exposure and learning....well, they will pay the price.

It's all part of "the word will be preached in all the inhabited earth until the end" versus.

The truth is out there...