I don’t think he said the Bible had errors; I think he said that the Lutheran Church allows a wide latitude on interpretations of the original Greek/Hebrew text, and that he believes the Biblical references of Lev 18:22, et. al. do not refer to homosexual relationships as they are present in today’s society.
Why not try and side with the Catholics here and stop fighting against us? Are we not all on the same side?
If you go back he said something along the lines that he did not think the bible was infallible but Luther probably did.
Wrong. He did say the bible had errors. He is trying to confuse and lead Catholics away from their faith. That is the sole reason he is a member on this board. He is constantly pushing the gay agenda.
Generally I prefer, as you said, to have a wide latitude in interpretation of the original Greek/Hebrew text. But I also wouldn’t swear that everything in the Bible is inspired by God. For example, in Leviticus 25:44 it says:
Do I believe that God thought it was OK for people to have slaves and treat them like property and allowed them to be inherited like other property? I have a difficult time dealing with texts like this and believing that this is something that came from God. Certainly, no one now would think that owning other human beings like property is acceptable.
**Does God and the bible denounce homosexual activity? ** Yes or no.
Back then women were considered property.
Interestingly, I asked Thor to comment on how it could be that Scripture provides not a single positive reference to the sexual union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and he did not respond.
It’s not a debating contest, each with an assigned “case” to put and win. SMGS made a perfectly valid point - it you think she erred, then point out the error as you see it.
at everything the other says? Or can we just have a logical discussion?Just as an aside, how does one find out what the Lutheran Church teaches? Or the Anglican Church? Do they have a Catechism?
The mind boggles at this interpretation. The scripture writer knew the sexual inclination of these sinners separate from the evidence of the sexual sins they committed. Perhaps we are to understand they were bisexual (and somehow, the Scripture writer knew this…)
Or maybe he is just saying what he thinks (whether it’s right or wrong). Why must you assert he has an evil motive? Just sayin’
The problem is nobody back then saw it that way.The mind boggles at this interpretation. The scripture writer knew the sexual inclination of these sinners separate from the evidence of the sexual sins they committed. Perhaps we are to understand they were bisexual (and somehow, the Scripture writer knew this…)
She is very frequently arguing against the Catholics here. She said on another thread that the homosexuality in Sodom was one of the minor sins. Homosexuality is not a minor sin. When I ask her about a questionable comment she made …she never responds.It’s not a debating contest, each with an assigned “case” to put and win. SMGS made a perfectly valid point - it you think she erred, then point out the error as you see it.
You, I and SMGS are all Catholics. Must we parrot each other and supply
The main statements of Lutheran belief are in the Book of Concord which was published on June 25, 1580 in Dresden, the fiftieth anniversary of the presentation of the Augsburg Confession to Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg. It contains:
Of course it came from God. It is inspired scripture. If not the Church would not include in the bible.
That still doesn’t change the fact that the Bible says that God proclaimed that slavery was OK at one time. If it was OK then, why not now? I thought that God doesn’t change.
