News-Record.com

STOP MAKNG SENSE ...

==

On a related subject, I heard on the Discover Channel that the High Catholic Official who "banned" sex for Priests was infact a horn-toad.

After he had led a rather - shall we say "active" youth and mid life - when he aged into the 50's he decided it would be better if OTHER priests would be - "inactive".

He had the power to proclaim it, and as Yul Brenner spoke in that Hollywood movie about Moses: "As it is written, so shall it be done."

You know, I'm going to have to go to the back issues of the News and Record and cut out the complete collection of letters that mention the Bible and homosexuality. It will save me a good bit of money on toilet paper.

Can we get away from this blasted subject? I'm sick to death of seeing people arguing over the meaning of a handful of poetry verses that were written thousands of years ago, m'kay? With the world falling to pieces and hundreds of local issues that need more detailed attention, why does anyone care who does what with whom in private? Get a life.

As stated here and other forums many times before, anyone can pick quotes from the bible to support their view on ANY subject. Homosexuality, murder, theft, drugs, you name it.
Give it a rest already!

Whether we admit it or not, all of us who use the scriptures to help us find our way and to guide our lives do so selectively.

Certain truths found in the Bible are self evident, some things are open to interpretation.

The theme of the New Testament is Love. It tells me that anything that I do that hurts another is wrong. It tells me not to judge which is hard for me, but I try.

When I saw G-d in the letter, I thought it was J4J, but when I read it I knew it was not.

The writer uses so many biblical distortions and errors in logic, that it is hard to know where to begin, but I'll try.

First of all, just because something has been practiced for centuries, does that make it right or good? Murder has been around for centuries, does that make it right?

Second, just because animals do something, does that make it right for humans? Some animals eat their young. Should humans do the same? Besides, some of the observations in animals described as homosexual may in fact be self-erotic behavior. So the 450 species number is probably bloated. I'm not sure of that because I haven't interviewed the animals and neither did the scientists!

Third, the few references on homosexual behavior that are given are clear and consistent in condemning the practice. Also, is she claiming that anything that Jesus didn't explicitly condemn, He approved of? Jesus never condemned pedophilia or gay-bashing, so are those practices acceptable?

Fourth, just because an author doesn't condemn a certain wrong in a letter, doesn't mean he or she approves of it. If someone writes a letter saying that neglecting the poor is good, I'll write a letter (and so will other Christians) condemning that practice.

Fifth, the author of the letter fails to recognize that Christians are under a new covenent (New Testament). Also, there are different types of law in the Old Testament for a theocratic nation: moral, civil and ceremonial (pertaining to worship and being a distinct people). Moral laws are confirmed in the NT (including homosexuality). So the shellfish argument is a non sequitor in that it would be a ceremonial law for a theocratic nation.

Finally, if you don't believe the Bible is true or is the Word of God, that is an argument for another day. But if you want to make a biblical argument, you should first understand how to properly read and interpret the Bible first. That's the only fair thing to do in a civilized discussion. Just as it is only fair that I properly represent the author of a letter's position before I attempt to refute it. I hope that I have done that in a fair and even-handed way.

yes CD the author is evidently 'jewish' (i.e., using the hyphen between G and d and the surname Gerber is a jewish surname...but i use the word 'jewish' very loosely, as in either born of a jewish mother and maybe father too or married a jew and converted, or just converted for the thrill), but obviously one who does not practice judaism, unless you consider reform judaism to be practicing judaism which you should not...

there are 2 kinds of american jews: those who know G-d's Word and live the Torah life (about 20% of american jews), and those who try to cling to the u.s. cultural religion of judaism ( about 80%, i.e., belong to the jewish country club, contribute dollars to the federation and haddasah, show up in 'temple' for the 'high and holier holidays', etc...)

that cultural religion is better called the new religion of Secular Fundamentalism and its rallying theme, that which they use to identify themselves, is 'Jesus is the enemy'...

its the great divide in the u.s....the secular fundamentalists (and there are christians on that side also who claim to love jesus but despise other fundamentalists) vocalizing that the christian fundamentalists are destroying the country.

your noting that 'certain biblical truths are self-evident' and some open to interpretation as well as 'the theme' of the New Testament being 'love' you state as fact/truth when those statements are obviously opinion.

J$J, please answer a few questions.

What do you think is the theme of the New Testament?

What are your views on divorce and remarriage, the role of women in the church, and women's role in marriage?

All these topics are in the New Testament. Do you take them literally?

j4j, add this one to Carol D's list; what says the scripture on inter-racial marriage?

Wow, the best response I could imagine to Watts' letter and it is precise and presented with factual evidence to support claims.

Sadly, what happens, someone comes along without any supporting evidence in a comment post and seeks to rip the letter apart.

I guess anyone reading the LTE and the blogs can determine the more informed writers.

Shalom

A little ironic, isn't it, for someone who signs in as "Jew4Jesus" to lecture us on what qualifies someone as a real Jew?

Ecuman,

You make some great points. At this point, however, it seems that folks on boths sides of the argument are pretty much set in their opinion. There are so many ways to look at this subject, both religious and secular.

Personally, I don't believe most people who engage in homosexual sex choose to desire people of the same sex. I can see no reason that most sane people would want to be gay. I still, however, believe that God views gay sex as a sin based on my reading of His Word.

An argument I often hear is that God would never create anybody who was gay if he would judge that to be a sin. Yet, people are alcoholics and drunkeness is a sin. People have lusty desires for adultery, fornication, sodomy with the opposite sex, etc and all of these are sins. Some people are with an amazing ability to tell lies, and yet lies are sins as well. We will all be tempted, some more than others. It is our reaction to this temptation that defines who we are.

I don't single it out as the only sin and do not try to rank it as more important or less important than any other sin. But I do believe that anyone who wishes to accept the full context of the Bible as truth must admit that the Bible plainly states homosexual sex is a sin. Many do not believe the Bible is true or applicable in its entirety, however. Many wish to only focus on the words of Jesus. I do believe that God has made salvation available to all, regardless of what your heart desires. But I believe that, in order to fully realize your potential as a follower of God, you must give ALL of your life to him.

edcone - ouch a typical cultural jewish spit/faceslap to the 'traitors' to prove my lesson to be true...it was no lecture, just a relevant and very current lesson to point out the difference between a u.s. cultural jew and a u.s. torah jew ...fyi, i really dont know what is a real jew (do you?) but i would put my best hunch on the jewish carpenter Jesus from Nazareth who completed his Judaism, as i did...he is certainly the best model of 'a real jew'...

obviously i am assured you are the latter, a cultural jew, who obviously believes, by the tone of your post, that jesus is the (your)enemy and that defines who you are as a jew: "i am (very proudly)jewish because i dont believe in jesus" (and that as a postscript, any jew who does cannot qualify any longer as a jew and we spit on him/her)...hey fellow bloggers, thats what the rabbis are teaching the edcones of the world, that lesson is 'Judaism 101'!!!

Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, as prophecied in the Jewish Bible, and if you studied it, you would find as I did that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed,and that the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.

Most of us here would agree that about 80% of prophecy has been fulfilled and it is an exciting time for the believers...unfortunately you would not understand until you opened and studied His Word for yourself, as I did...and I understand that you are too proud in your ways to do that, but if you seek Him earnestly, he will meet you...pride is the most despicable sin.

CD- my view is that the best model for marriage is Jesus and the Church as his bride; if the G-d of Abraham is not part of the equation of your marriage, you marriage is lifeless and doomed...

j4j, you are as good as mrp & the crowd for ducking questions!

Great rebuke of Ed Cone as well!

yellowdog, a point tha that finds us with differing views. I have a question about this comment (if you would please), "But I do believe that anyone who wishes to accept the full context of the Bible as truth must admit that the Bible plainly states homosexual sex is a sin." What is the "full context" of the Bible? Remember, what is used has only been around since the Council of Nicaea circa early 300s.

Honestly, I would enjoy some dialogue with you regarding the last paragraph of your last posting.

Shalom

Darryl:

I was wondering if you could put down "The DaVinci Code" for a few minutes and explain what the Council of Nicea has to do with this discussion.

J4J, please answer my questions. I would really like to hear your views on these issues (see questions above).

a 'real jew' would change his/her name back from Cone to its original Cohen!

Darryl's point is really important if you want to look at the historical development of the bible. The bible was not written in one "setting", nor was it written in one place, nor was it written by one human subject (person).

Many biblical writings were scribed from a very large oral tradition in both the old and new testaments. Many of these writings (both testaments) were lost or destroyed; others, or the rest were condensed to form smaller texts. As I recall, it was at the Council of Nicea, which was called by and monitored by the emperor Constantine, which finalized the canon or finalized what texts were to be formally considered as constituting what we today call "the Bible". We must understand that much of the writings in both testaments are compilations of the work of many hands and the human authorship(s)of half of the total bible is unknown. When studying the four gospels, going back to the greek texts, we can clearly see the hands of at least 4 different writing styles suggesting the editing efforts of at least 4 people. So when we talk about the bible as the word of God, we really need to allow for wider understanding and humble interpretations. Finally, for now, at Nicea, there was much discussion and debate about what should be included and excluded and also destroyed. If the bible is/was truly meant to be as absolute and infallible and definitive map or directive, then I am sure that God was/is capable of being
less circuitous and much more direct. We must remember also that the bible was written for people back "when"/then. Ms. Gerber, who has written the counter point above has some serious information for consideration. One final point, being of homosexual orientation is far different than "being an alcoholic", the former is intrinsic to who a particular person is and as far as what happens in the animal kingdom, we are part of that family--it's our socialization or religious indoctrination that calls us to a different type of behavior. There is alot of bad stuff going on in the world today--war, prejudice, white collar crime, rape, incest, cheating, unfair business practice etc. Thematically, that's all addressed in the bible, time to stop preaching, teaching, exegeting delivering hermaneutics and GET BUSY or GET OFF YOUR PILLOWS.

Sorry, this is joejoe again, regarding the bible: the day after Jesus's crucifixion, when people went to the tomb and found it empty, as I recall, three of the gospel accounts report fairly different stories about who was there, what happened and who said what to whom. So, was God not there, was he confused, why three different accounts ?? The bible is truly a powerful book but we need true biblical scholars to direct our understanding of what the bible is and then we can take it from there. Calling the bible as the word of God needs ALOT OF INSTRUCTION AND CLEAR BIBLICAL UNDERSTANDING. The bible is not a code book, a legal book, an absolute blue print. For me it's more a book that tells of a people's history and relationship with a truly wonderful deity.It's a written, highly edited, text that bespeaks of faith and requests a response in faith that is loving, non-judgmental and ready for service

Awesome words, JoeJoe.

Still waiting for your answers, J4J.

You'll probably be waiting for a while Carol. By the way, did you enjoy the BBQ? Auction did well too.

Joejoe, thanks for explaining the Council of Nicaea! Good words as well!

Shalom

ECUMAN,

You said:

If you want to make a biblical arguement, you should properly learn how to read and interpret the bible first.

Websters defines interpretation as:
a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style.

Interpretation is neither right nor wrong, it is simply like perception. What I interpret or perceive may be totally opposite of what you interpret or perceive. That is the problem with the bible. First it was translated time after time. Then it was interpreted time after time. Whose to say the devout followers of christ didn't first mis translate something? We all know interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. But if the translation was wrong from the get-go...what next?

And back to a question I had earlier in the week...if Christianity is required to get into heaven, what happened to all of the people on earth that never knew anything about Jesus such as native Americans? Are they in hell simply because nobody told them the Mesiah came? Think about that. Is that really what any of us believes the Christian God is all about???

GayTony:

I'm so glad you agree 100% with me on every point! That's how I interpreted what you wrote.

I don't know which Bible you are using, but my New American Standard Bible has been translated only once; directly from the Greek manuscripts into English. This argument of things being lost in translation is just false! Do you make the same argument with Homer's Illiad?

Finally, people don't go to Hell because they haven't heard about Jesus. They go to Hell because they are sinners who have broken God's law.

I'm not trying to be nasty, but many of your points are just common misunderstandings about the Bible, textual criticism and Christian theology. I can offer several good books that can help with these subjects.

gotta run, but before i do, somebody please take the time to explain to gaytony what is 'Abraham's bosom' as it relates to the American Indians, infants who died in or out of the womb, and others who did not have the chance to know Jesus as Lord...

J4J, still waiting for your answer to my questions. If I don't get an answer, I will assume you agree with the literal translation and are working of condemning those folks also.

OWW, sure did enjoy. Couldn't afford pickles or Red Velvet Cake.

make that "working on"

I don't believe Jesus is my enemy, or the enemy of the Jews, J4J. What an odd and hostile view of Jewish belief.

I'm fine with you believing what you please, and calling it what you please. That's your business.

But since Jews who accept Jesus as the Messiah are commonly known as Christians, not Jews, the irony is apparent.

Also, my family name was not Cohen, but thanks for the advice.

ECUMAN, this statement troubles me, "my New American Standard Bible has been translated only once; directly from the Greek manuscripts into English."

This is totally false. The "bible" that Christians use was not solely translated from Greek manuscripts. The Hebrew scriptures are translated from Hebrew, Aramaic and other languages of the Middle East. Comments like the above weaken one's competency in the discussion.

And the NASB has its translationary roots in the work of other translantions. So, the "been translated once" point becomes invalid as well.

And yes, sometimes points can get lost in translations. Why do many theologians, pastors/preachers, etc. consult differing translations so that their points can be stated unequivically? Why do so many translations exist in the first place? It is so that a more clearer understanding can be reached.

And gaytony's points are not "common misunderstandings." The issues raised are valid and some are even discussed in higher educational areanas.

j4j, I am with Carol on the question isssue.

Shalom

ok beautiful...

edcone says i have an 'odd and hostile view of jewish belief', and that because he no longer considers me a jew (because he has been taught that you can't be jewish and christian at the same time!), that it is 'apparent irony' that whatever i could or would ever say again about jews, whether american jews or otherwise, or about judaism or jewish belief would have no legs...i.e., i am no longer jewish, so how in the hell would i know what i am talking about? ... in other words 'you traitor', who cares what you have to say...you are a bogus jew if that, you took on the enemy's name.

if there's any hostility,(and of course there will always be!) it is towards that despicable and hostile teaching of the edcones' rabbis of the world...i dont blame edcone for that train of thought he is displaying here, it is his rabbi, and his parents/grandparents/great-grandparents, (fyi, somewhere there, or thereabouts, is when it changed from Cohen to Cone) and their rabbis who have taught him and his family that one central 'truth'of 'jewish belief'(Judaism 101):

"YOU ARE JEWISH, YOU DONT BELIEVE IN JESUS, AND (Judaism 101-A) DONT GET TOO CLOSE TO OR MARRY THE GOYIM(GENTILES)"...

That is the 'belief' that he says that I am 'odd and hostile' to...

He did not follow the short lesson from my post above in which i distinguish this/his 'belief' from the belief of a 'Torah Jew'... my 'hostility' is concerned with the false teachers who lead my people far away from the truth, not with judaism or edcones...

FYI, edcone, i am not 'commonly called' a christian as you seem to want to state as a truth...I am commonly called a Jewish Believer, a Jew who believes that Jesus Christ is the Jewish Messiah...if ones wants to call me a christian, I welcome/accept that but at that very same time i would let them know that i am a jew who has completed my judaism...there are now several hundred thousand of us around the world and the numbers are growing tremendously...PTL.

the true irony is that you would even attempt to defend what is 'jewish belief'...you are a secular 'jew' (maybe you are perhaps born of a jewish mother which is one of two reasons you would even call yourself a jew, but you are definitely not a torah jew! i've read your stuff in the paper to know that easily!)...if you were right here in front of us now and you were asked what is the torah and who wrote it you would be speechless....(of course now you will have to make a couple quick calls!)

but again, i dont blame you or have any hostility towards you or those like you...i made the mistake of believing the rabbis because my parents told me to just like you...the difference is that i finally saw it for what it was, a cult of christianity, and so earnestly, on my hands and knees crying out, sought the truth...it is a major miracle when a secular jew comes to know jesus, imho...centuries and centuries of rabinnical brainwashing lifted away....

please try to come to learn a great lesson that could set you free!! (matzo and manischewitz served!):

Events - Jews for Jesus

Christ in the Passover (info )
Rahel Landrum

Tuesday April 11, 2006 7:00 pm

Wendover Hills Wesleyan Church

205 S Swing Rd; Greensboro, NC (Map)

(336) 292-5886

j4j, I believe a visit to the opthamologist is in order. I for one did not see any of what is supposedly stated by Ed Cone in the post made by Ed Cone. Wow!

Now, to get the blog more on target, ECUMAN, has my posting been scrutinized? Just curuious.

Shalom

J4J, you choose to deny the faith and values of others, I won't be dragged into an argument with you about it.

I do think it's telling that you seem to need to put those same negative tendencies of attack and separation on the people you dismiss, although I've never heard a word of it in my fairly extensive experience among the Jews.

You are incorrect about the history of my family name. It was never Cohen. The Jews of Germany only took formal last names under Napoleon in the early years of the 19th century. At that time, different versions of the designation for the old priestly class -- the kohanim -- took hold. "Cohen" is one common version, but there were many others, each as legitimate as the next, as they were all Europeanized spellings of a Hebrew word. My family's name, from about 1807 til they came to this country a generation later, was Kahn. It was anglicized upon entering Virginia, by either the immigration officer or my great-great-grandfather. But I don't think it was meant to fool anyone -- it's still a derivation of Kohan, and we have stayed (your views to the contrary aside) Jews.

Incidentally, the first reform temple in North America was founded in Charleston, SC, in about 1820. You are writing off a long and deep history of American, and Southern, Jews.

jane you ignorant slut!

even if there was such a thing as reform judaism in charleton sc in 1820, which there was not, and you and i both know that reform judaism is a 20th century concept of some handful of rabbis, it would in no way shape or form resemble the version of reform judaism today, thank goodness! (i would go so far as to say that secular was not a word at that time!)

there is no argument to be dragged into...Judaism 101 is Judaism 101...we both took it and i flunked, you are going for the extra credit!

cult-outing is a tough bidniss...i dont mind doing it though...its good work if you can get it...

Ahavas Shalom y'all

(darryl, translated that means R.I.P. you all)

j4j, this is the LAST TIME that ANYTHING will be addressed directly.

With the vile comments, the mean spirit, and unvillingness to have any empathy, etc. for others leads me to feel that the "name" used here is ficticious at best and a lie at worst.

NO WHERE would Jesus the Christ EVER lash out in anger and in the mean spirit that is exhibited at one who is befriending another and/or possibly seeking. Yet, the mean spirit flows through the words written as if they magically appear.

It is plainly clear that nothing anyone says is correct from the view that you have. All are wrong unless they see it your way. And dare should one ask you look at something differently. Woe unto that one.

The vileness that comes forth is nowhere near anything that has been revealed to me concerning Jesus the Christ. Jesus the Christ even asked God to forgive the ones who killed him. Jesus the Christ did not speak to nor act out towards those people in any way that has been put forth in the N & R blogs. If you truly believe anything that you say, I hope you seek God's forgivness.

With the aforementioned in mind, I have come to this conclusion (same one reached concerning another person on another blog), you dear person are no longer worth my time or efforts. I have come to the clearness that further dialogue with you is senseless at best and useless at worst.

I wish you a happy life, if that can be achieved acting as has been done here. And trust me, I have talked to some of your fellow church attenders, I know the story. What a terrible contradictory life that is led. Then again, in anonymity, people believe that nothing is known.

You are being held in the Light.

Shalom,
Darryl

Reform Judaism goes back to the late 18th century, and first appeared in the US at Temple Beth Elohim in Charleston in 1824. It flowered with the arrival of many German Jews in the next couple of decades, including my (not-named-Cohen) family, and was well-established in this country and elsewhere long before the 20th century.