Alan Keyes Disowns His Daughter

[RFS62]

However, the point falls apart when the convictions are properly held, which the examples you provided were based on faulty interpretations of Scripture. This would not be one of those issues, in my opinion.

There is certainly room for changing one's mind about certain moral issues when confronted with new information that one has not considered before. However, if one decided that the Bible did not condemn homosexuality because a child turned out to be homosexual, then that person would be compromising, with my fallible interpretation of Scripture as the basis for that opinion. That was my point.

Here's one of my biggest problems with organized religion. Everybody thinks that their system is the one true inspired version, and that all the others have simply misinterpreted what they understand.

Literal interpretations when it suits your needs, general parables when vagueness is required.

[traderumor]

By the standards for parenting presented here, the Father of the Prodigal Son would be considered a bad parent. Considering that the Father in the parable is analagous to God the Father, I find that interesting. After all, once the son had spent his inheritance and was destitute and hungry, the Father just let him go and the poor fella had to eat corn husks with the pigs. Why didn't he stand by him and come and take him out of that terrible situation? Yet, he stood by and did nothing.

[Redsfaithful]

By the standards for parenting presented here, the Father of the Prodigal Son would be considered a bad parent

Did God write that parable?

[RedsBaron]

Did God write that parable?

Yes.
The parable was taught by Jesus Christ (see Luke 15:11-32).
I realize that non-Christians reject Christ's divinity. I also realize that proclaiming, as did Peter (Matthew 16:16) that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" is not acceptable in certain quarters. So be it.
I've offered no defense of Alan Keyes, and I'll further note that in the parable of the prodigal son, when the son does return home, his father welcomes him and celebrates his return. We can debate the applicability of the parable to the matter at issue.

[Redsfaithful]

Yes.
The parable was taught by Jesus Christ (see Luke 15:11-32).
I realize that non-Christians reject Christ's divinity. I also realize that proclaiming, as did Peter (Matthew 16:16) that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" is not acceptable in certain quarters. So be it.
I've offered no defense of Alan Keyes, and I'll further note that in the parable of the prodigal son, when the son does return home, his father welcomes him and celebrates his return. We can debate the applicability of the parable to the matter at issue.

So Christ wrote that down then?

[RedsBaron]

So Christ wrote that down then?

I assume you know that the books of the New Testament were authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, Jude, et al. Do you reject the validity of the New Testament?

[Redsfaithful]

I assume you know that the books of the New Testament were authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, Jude, et al. Do you reject the validity of the New Testament?

Yes, I do know that. I don't reject the validity of the New Testament, I find it's message quite superior to the Old in most cases actually, but I don't see it as infallible.

[registerthis]

That is a great point, which I am pretty sure was directed at my comments. However, the point falls apart when the convictions are properly held, which the examples you provided were based on faulty interpretations of Scripture. This would not be one of those issues, in my opinion.

If you believe that, then I would suggest you go read the book of Philemon--an entire letter from Paul urging a runaway slave to return to his master. Never is there a word uttered that the institution of slavery is morally wrong. People thus took that to mean that God condoned slavery, and it's not difficult to see why.

There is certainly room for changing one's mind about certain moral issues when confronted with new information that one has not considered before.

Such as the growing mountain of biological evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, and in fact is something that people are born with? This was something that was not considered at the time the Bible was written.

However, if one decided that the Bible did not condemn homosexuality because a child turned out to be homosexual, then that person would be compromising, with my fallible interpretation of Scripture as the basis for that opinion. That was my point.

And thus highlights the problems of basing all of one's decisions--moral and otherwise--on interpretations of the Bible. People are falliable, and their interpretations and understandings of certain parts of the Bible inevitably turn out to be wrong or misguided. You highlight two good ones above, although there are many more. (People used to be put to death, for instance, for claiming that--God forbid!--the Earth was round and not the center of the universe. Others believe that the Earth is only around 6,000 years old. You get my point.) How can you be certain that the church's commonly-held opinions on homosexuality are correct? Why would you risk ostracizing your daughter over a church's interpretation of the Bible?

back to Alan Keyes--it's impossible for me to view this as anything other than a political move by him. As another poster pointed out above, if he is *so* concerned over her immortal soul, why did he wait until she went public with this information before cutting her off?

[traderumor]

If you believe that, then I would suggest you go read the book of Philemon--an entire letter from Paul urging a runaway slave to return to his master. Never is there a word uttered that the institution of slavery is morally wrong. People thus took that to mean that God condoned slavery, and it's not difficult to see why.


Such as the growing mountain of biological evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, and in fact is something that people are born with? This was something that was not considered at the time the Bible was written.


And thus highlights the problems of basing all of one's decisions--moral and otherwise--on interpretations of the Bible. People are falliable, and their interpretations and understandings of certain parts of the Bible inevitably turn out to be wrong or misguided. You highlight two good ones above, although there are many more. (People used to be put to death, for instance, for claiming that--God forbid!--the Earth was round and not the center of the universe. Others believe that the Earth is only around 6,000 years old. You get my point.) How can you be certain that the church's commonly-held opinions on homosexuality are correct? Why would you risk ostracizing your daughter over a church's interpretation of the Bible?

back to Alan Keyes--it's impossible for me to view this as anything other than a political move by him. As another poster pointed out above, if he is *so* concerned over her immortal soul, why did he wait until she went public with this information before cutting her off?

I know the book of Philemon very well. I also understand that you do not seem to be aware of the nature of indentured servitude, whereby the slave/master relationship is voluntary for both, i.e. an employer/employee relationship in modern day parlance. That was a type of slavery common throughout Scripture and does not compare to the slavery common in the Southern states that you are referring to. You left out the part where God delivered the Israelites from the oppressive slavery the Egyptians had them under that resulted in the parting of the Red Sea and the Exodus. So obviously, there are types of master/slave relationships that the Bible clearly speaks against.

As for the Bible not being able to withstand "mountains of biological evidence," I've yet to see even a molehill of evidence, which a search of this side of the forum should help you out on various positions since it has been debated extensively around these parts. The Bible has proven quite durable, with skeptics lobbing shells at it for thousands of years, yet there are still so many living by its precepts and receiving the free gift of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ, so I'm sure that God is not sweating bullets over such a challenge to his infallible, inspired Word.

While you are correct in concluding that people are prone to arrive at improper interpretations concerning certain issues that lead to changes of course or faulty actions, it is not correct to conclude that renders the Bible useless. There is a "faith once for all delivered to the saints" and there is the art of science of Biblical hermeneutics to tackle the task of properly interpreting Scripture. So, while there are mistakes made and perpetuated in the process of interpreting and applying the Scriptures (hence denominations, factions, divisions, etc.), there is agreement at certain levels for most of the key doctrines in the Bible to the extent that folks can agree on the basics that define how one receives salvation, Who God is, Who Jesus Christ is, the preeminence of the Scriptures, just to name a few.

Hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

[registerthis]

I know the book of Philemon very well. I also understand that you do not seem to be aware of the nature of indentured servitude, whereby the slave/master relationship is voluntary for both, i.e. an employer/employee relationship in modern day parlance. That was a type of slavery common throughout Scripture and does not compare to the slavery common in the Southern states that you are referring to. You left out the part where God delivered the Israelites from the oppressive slavery the Egyptians had them under that resulted in the parting of the Red Sea and the Exodus. So obviously, there are types of master/slave relationships that the Bible clearly speaks against.

But we're talking interpretations, are we not? Can you not see where people would get the impression that the Bible condones slavery? I don't believe it does--in fact, I never said it did. But the whole point of this discussion is concerning people's "interpretations" of Biblical passages.

As for the Bible not being able to withstand "mountains of biological evidence," I've yet to see even a molehill of evidence, which a search of this side of the forum should help you out on various positions since it has been debated extensively around these parts. The Bible has proven quite durable, with skeptics lobbing shells at it for thousands of years, yet there are still so many living by its precepts and receiving the free gift of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ, so I'm sure that God is not sweating bullets over such a challenge to his infallible, inspired Word.

Simply choosing to ignore evidence does not make the Bible infalliable. If you claim you have seen *no* evidence suggesting that homosexuality is a choice, then I would suggest that you're not looking very hard. if you choose not to believe that evidence, then that is your decision. But there is certainly evidence there, and I don't want this discussion to veer off into that direction.

Besides, interpretations of the Bible have changed significantly over the ages. There is a line in the Bible which states that as Joshua held his arms aloft, the sun stood still and the Israelites were able to continue their battle. Well, of course the sun stood still--in relation to the Earth, the sun doesn't move. The writers at that time didn't know this, so to them it appeared that the sun stood still. When, in fact, if anything ahd truly stopped moving, it woul dhave been the Earth. Most likely, it was the summer solstice whichi provided the extraordinary amount of daylight mentioned.

That is only one example, but it shows that you simply can't look at every verse in the Bible with literal interpretation. Much of the Bible, particularly the Old testament, was written allegorically, with legends or stories meant to convey a message about God and His nature.

While you are correct in concluding that people are prone to arrive at improper interpretations concerning certain issues that lead to changes of course or faulty actions, it is not correct to conclude that renders the Bible useless.

I have never made that comment. I am, in fact, a Christian myself. I believe there is much to be learned from the Bible. And though it is the Inspired word of God, I don't find it to be infalliable. It was, after all, penned by man.

There is a "faith once for all delivered to the saints" and there is the art of science of Biblical hermeneutics to tackle the task of properly interpreting Scripture. So, while there are mistakes made and perpetuated in the process of interpreting and applying the Scriptures (hence denominations, factions, divisions, etc.), there is agreement at certain levels for most of the key doctrines in the Bible to the extent that folks can agree on the basics that define how one receives salvation, Who God is, Who Jesus Christ is, the preeminence of the Scriptures, just to name a few.

True, so then the question becomes (in relation to this thread), is the church's position on homosexuality the correct position? How can we be certain? As I said previously, during the 14th and 15th centuries, philosophers and astronomers were put to death for considering that the Earth was round, as it was viewed as contrary to the scripture. Obviously the church has since changed its position there (and only recently issued a formal apology--woops, sorry about that Galileo...), but the point remains. And as interpretations of the scripture *are* constantly evolving, it's dangerous to hold any strict interpretation of it as "infalliable."

[Redsfaithful]

there is agreement at certain levels for most of the key doctrines in the Bible to the extent that folks can agree on the basics that define how one receives salvation, Who God is, Who Jesus Christ is, the preeminence of the Scriptures, just to name a few.

Homosexuals are evil sinners damned to hell for all eternity, etc, etc.

[RedsBaron]

Yes, I do know that. I don't reject the validity of the New Testament, I find it's message quite superior to the Old in most cases actually, but I don't see it as infallible.

Peter's answer to Jesus in Matthew 16:16,wherein Peter stated that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God", was in response to Jesus's question: "But who do ye say I am" contained in verse 15.
I'm curious-who do you say Jesus Christ is?

[WVRed]

I have never made that comment. I am, in fact, a Christian myself. I believe there is much to be learned from the Bible. And though it is the Inspired word of God, I don't find it to be infalliable. It was, after all, penned by man.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[traderumor]

I have never made that comment. I am, in fact, a Christian myself. I believe there is much to be learned from the Bible. And though it is the Inspired word of God, I don't find it to be infalliable. It was, after all, penned by man.

Being a Christian, I'm sure you are aware of 2 Timothy 3:16. That is a good summary of the basis for Scripture's inspiration and infallibility. It's inspiration ensures infallibility--God breathed the Word and men wrote it down, using their own personality and writing style, but the words penned were exactly what God intended to express, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. In fact, I would consider that to be a non-negotiable essential for one to qualify as a believer. Using your own line of reasoning, since you are fallible, does it really matter if you personally find the Bible to be infallible?

True, so then the question becomes (in relation to this thread), is the church's position on homosexuality the correct position? How can we be certain?

Not sure what you mean by "the church" here, but the Biblical position is pretty clear and it takes some hermeneutical gymnastics that any contortionist would be proud of to take any other postion than Scripture teaching that homosexuality is sexual immorality in any and all situations. It can never be anything else. Feel free to provide one Scripture verse that says otherwise.

[WVRed]

Being a Christian, I'm sure you are aware of I Timothy 3:16.

Dont you mean 2 Timothy 3:16?.