Desmond Tutu: I’d pick hell over an anti-gay heaven

Religion? Meaningless. Relationship with savior, priceless. Unbelief disguised as belief is a waste of time. You either believe God and the people whom he spcecially inspired to write scripture and that what he inspired them to write is his truth, or you do not. It is that simple.

 

Is it that simple? So tell me, brother, do you believe that it is true that Judas “hanged himself” (Mt. 27:5) or is it true that “he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.” (Acts 1:18 )?

I think your relationship with your saviour (and I believe that it is true that Christ is our saviour) might improve greatly if you took the time to listen to this lecture one day or if you just bothered to read the Bible, all of it:

[video=youtube;O9EhYVt-dyw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9EhYVt-dyw[/video]

[video=youtube;HgDKAcsT6Nc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgDKAcsT6Nc [/video]

 

Splitting hairs. Not my style. Judas killed himself after betraying the Savior as was foretold in scripture. I never watch you tube videos, they are poorly sourced and I have no idea who that is that is speaking or what denomination he belongs to or what authority he is under. If that same video is on his web site where I can read about him and his ministry I may give it a go, other wise, no thanks.

 

Hmmm... apparently Mr. Tutu will enjoy a lot flirting with homosexuals in hell...

 

Splitting hairs? Well, I’m bound to agree, but then I don’t think the Bible is inerrant. The Bible itself clearly tells me that it is not!

And did you not just say that religion doesn’t matter to you? So why the need for all this information about a lecturer’s religious background all of a sudden before you are willing to listen to him?

Well, but seeing that you have that need: Keith Ward is an ordained Minister of the Church of England and emeritus Professor of Divinity at Oxford University. He was a canon of Christ Church, Oxford until 2003. Here is his website: http://www.keithward.org.uk/ There you’ll also find links to other lectures of him that he gave at Gresham College. You may especially be interested in this one on gender and sexuality: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/theres-nowt-so-queer-as-folk-gender-and-sexuality
Not sure whether this information will entice you to listen to him. I really have to start going about my daily business now, so maybe until I’m back you’ll do. Whatever you do, have a nice day.

 

Varience in details does not affect inerrency. Religion is not Christianity. Who was Jesus the hardest on? The religious. I will not waste my time with false teachers. I want to know who he is and where his church is, if he has one, so that I know his back ground. Angelican? I read the article you supplied, thanks for that. He is an appeaser = false teacher. Sorry, he is minimizing what God said to appeal to those who do not want to take God or his word seriously, and why should they, because this "preacher" does not.

 

Variance doesn’t, irreconcilable contradiction does. Only one of the statements I’ve given you can be right. They can’t both be right. Is this error, be it in the Gospel of Matthew or in Acts, important? No. The only importance that it carries is that in His wisdom the Lord chose to show you very clearly that the Bible is not inerrant. It obviously does not even claim to be a factual historical account. It’s supposed to tell you something about your relationship with God. And in that I believe it to be infallible, contrary to our understanding of it, which is very fallible.

I told you what his Church is. The Church of England, Christ Church, Oxford, to be specific. I’d say Ward takes God and the Bible very seriously, because he devoted his life to studying it, really really studying it at some of the most distinguished universities.

Now you may say that any Church but yours sports false teachers, but I fear you may find in the end that your teachers were false. The Lord may indeed be very hard on you for adhering to hate-preachers rather than to His divine spiritual command to love your neighbour as yourself. But thankfully our Lord is a forgiving Lord, so I have hope that He’ll forgive you and that He’ll even forgive me for the many times I failed to live up to this highest of commands. Go in peace, brother.

 

He has to say that. His last name is Tutu.

 

Percieved contradiction. Much different.

If he minimizing what God's word says, he is a flase teacher. My Church has a false teachers, they creep in, but once discovered, they are gone and not tolerated. Truth is not hate, in fact it is love. Judgement is God's alone.

 

You are right about the fact that Jesus is a forgiving LORD. And that is true for you and I and homosexuals as well. But are they seeking foregiveness, is there draw of their sin so strong that (if you will pardon the expression) resistence if futile. So, in short, you are right. I am wrong. But the fact remains that God is serious about sin, and homosexuality is the only sin (to my knowledge) that is an abomination before God. That has to be a consideration. Jesus said to the woman caught in adultry, "Go, and sin no more".

 

According to the Bible God’s word is not the Bible but Jesus Christ (John 1:1-15). In the New Testament you find cherished memories of that word, memories that are bound to differ from each other after decades between people actually being with Jesus and writing stuff down about him. That these memories differ is to be expected. As Ward pointed out in the lecture you refuse to listen to that just shows that the New Testament has not been fixed (as some atheists prone to conspiracy-theories concerning its canonization like to suggest). If you are out for truth, you should look for Christ in your heart rather turning the Bible and your narrow-minded interpretation of it into an idol.

For somebody who claims to hold the Bible in such high regard your knowledge on what's written in it is surprisingly small. I suggest you read it more often and more thoroughly. I’ve already mentioned Deuteronomy 22:5 to you according to which women wearing trousers would be an "abomination" (something our Victorian ancestors would have fully agreed to, your average modern religious conservative not so much as you can see in Sarah Palin). The Book of Proverbs alone speaks of seven abominations and incidentally same-sex-sex is not among them: “There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.” (Proverbs 6:16-19)

What's "sin"?
The standard for what is sin is not social convention nor anything in the written law. See 2 Cor. 3:6: “He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” .The standard is the spiritual law to love God and to love your neighbour as you love yourself. IMHO in your attitude towards homosexuality you lack spirit, you bind yourself to what you think is written law and to your own rather brute human aversion against a sexual orientation that is not yours.
The adulteress doubtlessly sinned, because adultery involves hurting another person. The only same-sex-activities Paul knew of also were sinful, because they either were a form of idol-worship (temple prostitution) or exploitative relationships. Non-exploitative loving sexual encounters between two men/a men and a women committed to each other are no more a sin than loving non-exploitative sexual encounters between a man and a women committed to each other.

 

You are a false teacher. Your idea of real spirituality and the reality of spirituality are diametrically opposed.

 

That's exactly why all gods are imaginary. If you don't like what the official fairy tale says about them just give them new attributes to suit your version of what they should be.

 

Could be. But what I do know, I do not missapply.

Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

- - - Updated - - -

Whhaatt???

 

Yes, you do misapply it. We are no longer bound by OT-law and I say it’s a misapplication to cherry-pick which of those OT-laws you want to keep on the basis of your darkest hateful prejudices that are in plain discord with the Spirit of Christ.

You may of course not want to go with Paul’s notion that we are no longer bound by OT-law, even though that’s what is the Bible tells you the earliest Christians agreed on after Peter’s vision. But if you reject the idea that “all has been accomplished” in Christ’s death and resurrection, you should indeed keep the OT-laws to “the least stroke of a pen” and set not “aside one of the least of these commands”. (Matt. 5:17-20). So then, unless you follow all of Leviticus like an ultra-orthodox Jew would, you are a hypocrite.

 

Did I stutter?

 

Matthew 5:17-20 refers to the rules that Jesus gave and not to the old Law. About the only thing Jesus followed from the old Law was the passover ritual. He ignored all of the other rules.

 

I’m sorry to have to put it that bluntly, but as usual when you are talking about scripture, you are talking out of your arse.
To begin with Jesus never wrote anything down that his disciples could have followed to the last stroke of the pen. Clearly Jesus refers to the written Jewish law here. Matthew is the gospel that depicts Jesus as law-abiding Jew. Mark is the one that depicts him as freely breaking or rather reinterpreting that law. Get a synopsis and check it out. If that’s too much work for you: http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2...h-jesus-the-gospel-of-matthews-portrait-nt-4/
What you find in my post is how early Christians dealt with such conflicting information when it came to the question whether gentiles should be allowed into the church without following Jewish law.

Why do you find it so interesting to butt into this discussion anyway? It's already been noted that you view all of religion as humbug. You can spare yourself further efforts to make that clear.

 

Please cite some passages that show Jesus obeying the Law.

 

That is techniquely true. But the law of grace is of no effect for willful unrepentant sin. Whether homosexuality or drunkeness. God will judge sin not covered by the blood of Christ, the book of Revelation covers the day of judement, sheeps and goats and all that.

 

No. Parroting was attempted and I saw it as the immature antic that it is. I was not going to point it out as that would be impolite, but since you asked it must not be as obvious as I thought it would be, so I figured you must really want to know and I must not deny a request from a friend.

 

You’ve already been presented with Matthew 5:17-20. In the rest of the Sermon of the Mount Jesus keeps interpreting OT-law in classical Rabbinic fashion telling His listeners how to surpass the righteousness of the Pharisees. You want another passage?

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.” (Matthew 23:23)

Or do you want to have reports of Jesus actually sticking to Jewish rituals in His daily life? Do you also want reports on Jesus going to the loo and blowing his nose, before you think He did?

However, the main question is: do you have any point here that would actually contribute to the topic or are you just trying to troll again?

 

Well, we’re moving in circles here. I already told you why I don’t think homosexuality as such is a sin that requires repenting and why I fear that you may find yourself among the goats. Your faith is worth nothing if it’s not accompanied by love (1. Cor. 13:1-13), and I see more love in Desmond Tutu’s words than I see in yours.

 

Well, you are, I am linear and rock solid.

 

Or so you think. IMHO a rather breathtaking cockiness for somebody who’s just repeatedly been shown that he does not even know what’s written in the Bible. Do you know what Jesus said to those who were “confident of their own righteousness” (Luke 18:9-14)?