Matthew Vines on "anti-gay" passages in the Bible

[australian]

australian, I thought that Christianity was all about the New Testament and obeying Jesus and not the teachings of Paul and Peter? Isn't that why it's called Christianity, and not Paulianity or Peteranity? How come more sins (such as gluttony and vanity) are more acceptable than being LGBT? Here are a couple of Biblical laws that fundies and ignorant Christians seem to forget in the OLD TESTAMENT:

"The LORD said to Moses, tell the Israelites: When a woman has conceived and gives birth to a boy, she shall be* unclean for seven days, with the same uncleanness as at ther menstrual period."(Leviticus, chapter 12, verses 1-2, The New American (Roman Catholic) Bible c. 1987, ed. 1991.)

"Rever your mother and father, and keep my sabbaths." (Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 3.)

""When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not be so thorough that you reap the field to its very edge, nor shall you glean the stray ears of grain." Likewise, you shall not pick your vineyard bare, nor gather up the grapes that have fallen. These things you shall leave for the poor and the alien." (Leviticus, chapter 19, verses 9-10.)

""You shall not steal. You shall not lie or speak falsely to one another. You shall not swear falsely by my name, thus profaning the name of your God." (Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 11.)

"You shall not defraud or rob your neighbor. You shall not withold overnight the wages of your day laborer. You shall not curse the deaf, or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but you shall fear your God." (Leviticus, Chapter 19, verses 13-14.)

"You shall not act dishonesty in rendering judgement. Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly. You shall not go about spreading slander among your kinsmen, nor shall you stand idly when your neighbor's life is at risk." (Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 15.)

"You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him. Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. *" (Leviticus, chapter 19, verse17-18.)

"Keep my statutes: do not breed any of your domestic animals with others of a different species; do not sow a field of yours with two different kinds of seed; and do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread." (Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 19.)

* ""If a man has carnal realtions with a female slave who has already been living with another man but has not yet been redeemed or given her freedom, they shall be punished but not put to death, because she is not free. The man, moreover, shall bring to the entrance of the meeting tent a ram as his guilt offering to the LORD. With this ram the priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the sin he has commited, and it will be forgiven him." (Leviticus, chapter 19, verses 20-22.)

* "When you come into the land and plant any fruit tree there, first look upon its fruit as if it were uncircumcised. For three years, while its fruit remains uncircumcised, it may not be eaten In the fourht year, however, all of its fruit shall be sacred to the LORD as a thanksgiving feast to him. Not until the fifth year may you eat its fruit." (Leviticus, chapter 19, verses 23-25.)

""Do not eat meat with blood in it. Do not practice divination or soothsaying." (Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 26.)

"Do not lacerate your bodies for the dead, and do not tatoo yourselves." (Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 28.)

"Do not go to mediums or fortune-tellers, for you will be defiled by them." (Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 31)

""Stand up in the prescence of the aged, and show respect for the old; thus shall you fear your God." (Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 32.)

""When an alien resides with you in your land, do not molest him. You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you; have the same love for him as for yourself; for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt." (Leviticus, chapter 19, verses 33-34.)

""Do not act dishonestly in using measures of length or weight or capacity. You shall have a true scale and true weights, an honest ephah and an honest hin." (Leviticus, chapter 19, verses 35-36.)

""Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life." (Leviticus, chapter 20, verse 9.)

""If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus, chapter 20, verse 13.)

"The LORD then said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and when all who heard him have laid their hands on his head, let the whol community stone him." (Leviticus, chapter 20, verses 13-14.)

"You shall have but one rule, for alien and native alike." (Leviticus, chapter 20, verse 22.)

How come Christians don't obey these commands/laws? (And those are only a 2-page sample!) How come only being LGBT is seen as a sin even though Jesus doesn't say much about it in the New Testament; and fundie/ignorant Christians don't obey these commands, they say 'cause it's in the Old Testament, yet use the Old Testament as support for being anti-gay?

(pages 116-117)

I see you have quoted from a Catholic Bible, so Ill frame my response in terms of Catholicism.

Your final statement is the most alarming, so Ill start there. Anyone who believes that being LGBT is the only thing that is sin, has no idea what Christianity or Catholicism is about. Is there anyone who believes that being LGBT is the only thing that is sin? Such a position is certainly not what the Catholic Church teaches as official doctrine.

Im not in agreement with the statement that "being LGBT is a sin". When someone today says "Im LGB" they are primarily expressing that they are attracted to members of the same sex. That is not a sin. Lust is a sin, and sex can be a sin, but attraction is not a sin.

Overall, your post seems to be saying "Why do Christians/Catholics follow the bits in the Bible that refer to gay sex as sinful, but ignore numerous other references to other things being sinful?" Well official Catholic doctrine is not to ignore any of the Bible. Rather, it is believed that various parts no longer apply. EG in Lev. 24:19-20 it says that if someone injures their neighbour, then the punishment for causing the injury, should be that they have the same injury inflicted on them. But when Jesus came, he said that within Christianity, that policy would not apply (Matthew 5:38-39). So the Catholic church is not ignoring Lev. 24:19-20, but rather they believe it does not apply to Christians. Likewise the commands of stoning as specified in Leviticus are believed to have been rejected by Jesus in John 8:1-11, and the commands about not eating certain things, are believed to have been rejected by Jesus in Matthew 15:11. But deciding which parts of the Old Testament dont apply to Christians is not entirely clear cut, and there is some debate within Christianity about it. EG here is a Protestant view: http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp ... /99939.qna . However, the topic of gay sex is not simply all about deciding which parts of the Old Testament apply to Christians - the New Testament refers to gay sex as sinful too.

Im no expert on Leviticus, and Im not Catholic, but I suspect that some of the passages you quote are still considered by official Catholic doctrine to be valid. My guess is that from chapter 19, of those you quoted, verses 3, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 31, 35, and 36 would still be considered applicable to Catholics.

[Anxious Girl]

australian, Catholics are Christians, but Christians who aren't Catholic can't be Catholic. Catholocism is a big schism of Christianity just like Orthodox Christianity and Protestant Christianity are.

[australian]

I don't know if you're still around, Australian, but I'll address this to you anyways.

At least have the honesty that you have certain beliefs and are not really interested on whether they are truly supported by the Bible.

And that is why you don't ask questions. You don't ask what the words used actually meant in their cultural context. You don't ask why if the infamous verse in Leviticus were prohibiting homosexuality, it only mentions men.

I think you're afraid of the answers.

Yea Im still around. I come and go.

I am truly interested in whether gay sex is supported by the Bible. It's such a point of disagreement that it's important that I and others get it right. I am interested in what the words of the Bible meant in their cultural context and Ive looked into that. Im not very surprised that the Leviticus passage about gay sex mentions men but does not women - that approach of primarily framing things in terms of men, is common in the Bible.

[formergothardite]

Why is it important to find out if it is a sin? Does a happily married gay couple having sex hurt anyone?

[Anxious Girl]

Yea Im still around. I come and go.

I am truly interested in whether gay sex is supported by the Bible. It's such a point of disagreement that it's important that I and others get it right. I am interested in what the words of the Bible meant in their cultural context and Ive looked into that. Im not very surprised that the Leviticus passage about gay sex mentions men but does not women - that approach of primarily framing things in terms of men, is common in the Bible.

It doesn't matter if you and others agree or disagree with the Bible. Biblical opinions should stay out of law. You can be all, "I hate they icky gays," but you can't use your emotional opinion supported by religous texts to be put in law to make you feel better about how society can meet what you consider to be moral values. Deal with it.

[australian]

Why is it important to find out if it is a sin? Does a happily married gay couple having sex hurt anyone?

This thread began by looking at a presentation which claimed that it wasnt a sin. Im largely responding to say that the presentation was one-sided and misleading. But from a secular perspective, it doesnt matter.

[australian]

It doesn't matter if you and others agree or disagree with the Bible. Biblical opinions should stay out of law. You can be all, "I hate they icky gays," but you can't use your emotional opinion supported by religous texts to be put in law to make you feel better about how society can meet what you consider to be moral values. Deal with it.

I largely agree with you. It's not my intention to talk about secular law. This thread began by just looking at what the Bible teaches. Secular law is ... secular and a different matter.

[Gil]

Australian, why exactly are you on this forum? All you've posted about is the one video you're hung up about. How did you find Freejinger? Do you just go from forum to forum offering your special brand of commentary on this one video?

[thoughtful]

Well I havent read the following webpages carefully, but I suspect they are a good start:

http://leesomniac.wordpress.com/2012/08 ... nt-part-2/

http://www.blogos.org/compellingtruth/h ... -bible.php

I finally got a chance to look at these.

You said that other ancient Greek scholars disagreed with him, and I asked you for other translations of the Greek you felt was misinterpreted. Neither of those links really did the trick.

The first link was part two of a series -- I read both parts, and, other than a brief review of "Arsenokoitai and Malakos," which boiled down to "nobody really knows about the first one, and I think Vines is wrong about the second," there was nothing about Greek in either part.

The rest of it was, basically, "my/my church's interpretation of the English text is different, so Vines is wrong," as far as I could tell.

The second one seems to make a better connection about the Arsenokoitai controversy, but that seems to depend on the Greek translation of the original Hebrew from Leviticus, and, as I posted before about the Hebrew-to-English issues, I don't know if that is valid. Also, it is only about that one word.

Any better Greek scholars than I am want to look at it and tackle that?

Both of them are taking Paul, rather than Jesus, as the authority on what it means to be Christian. Some Christians may find that just dandy, some may not.

Matters not to me, but I can say that I found this aside, at the first link, more telling about the author's POV than anything about the Bible and Vines' views.

(contrary to feminists, Paul is not a misogynist)

Australian, I will take you at your word that you wouldn't want to legislate what you believe and force it on others, and that you only came here because you felt Vines' ideas are not valid and wanted to -- well, set us straight, I guess.

But, I still wonder why you bothered, and am ill-at-ease about your focus on this subject.

Even if Vines is wrong, he'd hardly be the only wrong person in the world.

Let me put it this way -- I know why I am on FreeJinger; many aspects of fundamentalism in religion frighten and disgust me. I hurt for children who are being beaten and undereducated, I hate superstition and fear, I want women to be free and equal, I worry that some want our government to be run by their religious rules - the list goes on and on.

In any given week, I could be in many discussions of all of these things. And, on other fora, and IRL, I have conversations about a thousand other things.

I don't know what else you discuss, elsewhere, but here, you've only been on this thread, and it looks like you found us by a search on Vines' name.

And I have to admit that it has me curious -- is this just something that has recently caught your attention? A lifelong quest? Why is the idea that homosexuality is a sin such a focus for you?

If, in fact, you are also out there campaigning for better conditions for the poor, discussing other aspects of your faith, doing charitable acts -- or, heck, swapping recipes and telling jokes, etc., great, and forgive me for thinking this is your main focus as a Christian and a person. But that's not the image of yourself you have presented here.

Even as a straight non-Christian, I am taken aback by the focus some people seem to have on this issue.

No matter how calmly stated, it always feels like a child in a tantrum, angry that some gay people want to enjoy their precious Christianity, like it's a toy they refuse to share.

[Arete]

The second one seems to make a better connection about the Arsenokoitai controversy, but that seems to depend on the Greek translation of the original Hebrew from Leviticus, and, as I posted before about the Hebrew-to-English issues, I don't know if that is valid. Also, it is only about that one word.

The second link mistranslates. When the compound word Paul uses is broken down, THESE are the correct translations areseno, means male in the koine Greek. Koitai is the koine Greek term for male penetrator, NOT for sexual intercourse. As both Effie and I have tried to explain before (she had a much better scholarly link), ancient Greek male-on-male sexual activity focused on the role each male played. A submissive was considered a degraded role. The penetrator is the dominant whose purpose was to excercise submission.

As for Leviticus, the term "arsenokoitai" is not used. This is the Greek translation of the Hebrew-hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos-You will not recline and penetrate a man as you would a woman. Context is everything. I can't speak to the original Hebrew, but the Greek translation clearly states that you will not recline and PENETRATE a man as you would a woman. This isn't about gay sex, it is about one, and only one, male-on-male sex act or behavior.

Some scholars hypothesize that the word "arsenokoitai" that Paul uses was a contraction of the two seperate words in "meta arsenos koiten gunaikos" of the translated Levitical injunction. Koine Greek scholars mostly agree the word is ambigious, and we are unsure how may specific sexual acts in may cover. We do not see the word in any other Greek manuscripts before Paul.

I Skyped my cousin on this matter today, as he actually is a koine Greek scholar. His qualifications is that he has a Master's in linguistics, and has taught koine Greek and Latin for 25 years. He used an koine Greek to modern Greek dictionary. He is an atheist, and therefore has no skin in this game. Actually, I think he was quite bewildered by my interest.

[Arete]

I am going to sign off on this by once again banging the drum that you cannot read in the Bible in any language divorced from its historical or social context. Men who penetrated other men in the ancient world often did it to punish defeated soldiers or to exert dominance and humiliation. Of course using sex to exert dominance and humiliation would have been considered a sin by people who believed that God cared about every human life, and that we were to above all love one another. The unknown God who cared about all human lives and wanted humans to love one another was a very radical concept to introduce into the philosophical and religious life of the ancient Greek world Paul was a part of.

Paul as a Jew who was a citizen of the Roman Empire had no concept of same sex LOVE. Only certain same sex behavior. Since gays and lesbians want to marry out of love, not to degrade their partners, this really should not be rocket science. You put gays and lesbians under the same obligations in a marriage contract as you would straight people-life long fidelity to their partners, walking on a journey to know God together.

[australian]

I finally got a chance to look at these.

You said that other ancient Greek scholars disagreed with him, and I asked you for other translations of the Greek you felt was misinterpreted. Neither of those links really did the trick.

The first link was part two of a series -- I read both parts, and, other than a brief review of "Arsenokoitai and Malakos," which boiled down to "nobody really knows about the first one, and I think Vines is wrong about the second," there was nothing about Greek in either part.

The rest of it was, basically, "my/my church's interpretation of the English text is different, so Vines is wrong," as far as I could tell.

I dont understand how the http://leesomniac.wordpress.com page didnt do the trick, or how you could conclude that leesomniac believes that nobody really knows the meaning of 'arsenokoitai'. At one point, leesomniac defines Arsenokoitai as “men who sleep with other men.†How do you interpret, from such a statement that nobody really knows the meaning? Furthermore, leesomniac details why they translate 'arsenokoitai' the way they do, how they think the word arose in the first place, and why that etymology is relevant. Im at a loss to understand how that does not provide an answer your query.

Could you clarify what information you are seeking? Is it general understanding of Kione Greek, such such as provided by sites such as http://www.ntgreek.net/

But, I still wonder why you bothered, and am ill-at-ease about your focus on this subject.

Even if Vines is wrong, he'd hardly be the only wrong person in the world. ... And I have to admit that it has me curious -- is this just something that has recently caught your attention? A lifelong quest? Why is the idea that homosexuality is a sin such a focus for you?

Of course he is not the only wrong person in the world. But he had me fooled for a while, and he does seem to be the man of the moment on this topic. I started looking into what he said, and Ive found it took a lot of time to look through it all, so I suppose it has become something of a focus. I guess if you are going to become familiar with something as deep as this topic, unless you make it something of a focus, then you never really get a good grasp of it.

... Matters not to me, ...

I know why I am on FreeJinger; many aspects of fundamentalism in religion frighten and disgust me. I hurt for children who are being beaten and undereducated, I hate superstition and fear, I want women to be free and equal, I worry that some want our government to be run by their religious rules - the list goes on and on.

You have questioned my motives, so I guess I now have an unspoken permission to question yours? Like you, Im ill at ease. Im ill at ease with your claimed objectivity, ie your claim that this topic "matters not" to you. May I respectfully point out then that you are uncomfortable with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Also that your views are aligned with the political left. I dont intend to get into political debates, but Id like to point out that someone with your views would tend to find themselves within a leftist ideological environment. There is nothing wrong with wanting women to be free and equal, but it is notable that those who make feminism and rationalism etc a priority, tend to find themselves surrounded with friends who feel likewise, and absorbing media outlets that support that ideology ... and without being able to help it, broader leftist ideologies too - one of which is broad acceptance of homosexuality. Even if you dont recognise it yourself, Id venture that deep inside you feel uncomfortable with the notion that the Bible might discriminate against gays, and you would prefer to find holes in that view. After all, otherwise, why would you bother to comment on this thread or do the research that you are doing? Not that research is a bad thing ... if it has objective goals in mind.

[JesusFightClub]

I don't think whether one is politically left or right wing has much of a bearing on the Bible. It is what it is no matter what way you vote, or even if you don't believe in voting at all. ;)

Personally I always understood there was a prohibition against homosexuality in the Bible, but not a strong one. We disregard most of the injunctions in Leviticus nowadays, and the anti-homosexuality one (for men only) is fairly obviously of its time and place. Paul speaking later was probably talking of issues within the culture of the time, rather than saying "No mutual bean-flicking in 2012 for you!" He also had rather major issues with human sexuality.

I am not like Aretejo and understanding the Greek, so I may well be wrong on this one. But I did go to a religious school and I can honestly say no one cared about this issue at all. We got lectures on all kinds of bizarre things, from the IRA to all Muslims going to hell. However not gayness, I don't know anyone was particularly bothered about it. And as for abortion, while we understood generally you weren't supposed to have one, this is difficult to prove from the Bible and I don't remember anyone trying.

I find it strange that people nowadays are really obsessed with two things that are hardly in the Bible at all. Abortion is mentioned as something a priest can do, and homosexuality gets two disapproving mentions, which is as nothing compared to the sin of being uncharitable.

[Effie]

Australian said: May I respectfully point out then that you are uncomfortable with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

May I respectfully point out that you worship the Bible - more so than you worship God. You fail to examine the Bible with its overall message in mind.

[emmiedahl]

Australian said: May I respectfully point out then that you are uncomfortable with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

May I respectfully point out that you worship the Bible - more so than you worship God. You fail to examine the Bible with its overall message in mind.

Unless Australian is stoning rape victims and giving wives suspected of cheating a forced abortion, he too is uncomfortable with a literal interpretation.

Australian, I noticed that you mentioned slavery in the context of a Christian society. You mean like the American deep south in the 18-19th century?

You seem to acknowledge that the word for homosexual in the New Testament is disputed. I agree. If someone wants to start talking about homosexuality in the OT, they had better not eat pork/shellfish/meat from the hind half of an animal and they sure better not wear mixed fibers!

[australian]

I am going to sign off on this by once again banging the drum that you cannot read in the Bible in any language divorced from its historical or social context.

Very true. And so in order to interpret what the Bible says about homosexuality, it's a good idea to examine the understandings of homosexuality, by the people at that time.

Men who penetrated other men in the ancient world often did it to punish defeated soldiers or to exert dominance and humiliation. Of course using sex to exert dominance and humiliation would have been considered a sin by people who believed that God cared about every human life, and that we were to above all love one another. The unknown God who cared about all human lives and wanted humans to love one another was a very radical concept to introduce into the philosophical and religious life of the ancient Greek world Paul was a part of.

Paul as a Jew who was a citizen of the Roman Empire had no concept of same sex LOVE. Only certain same sex behavior.

What basis do we have to think that Paul had no concept of same-sex love? Was he unaware of the Jewish understandings of same-sex relationships as described by the ancient Jewish Sifra on Leviticus? Wouldnt it be odd for a Pharisee to be unfamiliar with such writings about the Old Law? Do we think he was ignorant of same-sex relationships of that era and place, such as Nero's relationship with Sporus? How is that that Paul could be so unaware, whilst Philo was so aware of same-sex relationships that he was writing that males who challenged gender norms, "loved boys", effeminised their appearance, and did not reproduce, were "continually strutting through the market place at midday" (The Special Laws III). What reason do we have to believe that Paul was so ignorant of all this? If Paul primarily perceived male homosexual sex to be about humiliation, why he refer to it as an act of lust, in Romans 1?

[australian]

Unless Australian is stoning rape victims and giving wives suspected of cheating a forced abortion, he too is uncomfortable with a literal interpretation.

Australian, I noticed that you mentioned slavery in the context of a Christian society. You mean like the American deep south in the 18-19th century?

You seem to acknowledge that the word for homosexual in the New Testament is disputed. I agree. If someone wants to start talking about homosexuality in the OT, they had better not eat pork/shellfish/meat from the hind half of an animal and they sure better not wear mixed fibers!

I largely covered these issues in a post at the top of page 6 of this thread, and the slavery issue a bit earlier in the thread. Im not aware of the Bible ever advocating forced abortions.

[Guest Anonymous]

I largely covered these issues in a post at the top of page 6 of this thread, and the slavery issue a bit earlier in the thread. Im not aware of the Bible ever advocating forced abortions.

Numbers 5:11-31

[australian]

You fail to examine the Bible with its overall message in mind.

Well the Bible says a lot. I guess this is not the forum to go into detail about everything the Bible says. This thread started as an examination of the Matthew Vines presentation. He argues that the overall message of the Bible does not oppose homosexual sex. In keeping with that topic, Im just saying his arguments are flawed and his conclusion about the Biblical position on homosexual sex, is incorrect. Never the less, Im sure he's a nice person in many respects, and I hope he finds happiness.

[Guest Anonymous]

Well the Bible says a lot. I guess this is not the forum to go into detail about everything the Bible says. This thread started as an examination of the Matthew Vines presentation. He argues that the overall message of the Bible does not oppose homosexual sex. In keeping with that topic, Im just saying his arguments are flawed and his conclusion about the Biblical position on homosexual sex, is incorrect. Never the less, Im sure he's a nice person in many respects, and I hope he finds happiness.

Is it physically possible to overdose on condescension? I can be a snotty, patronizing bitch sometimes, but that's just sickening.

[australian]

Numbers 5:11-31

Wow Im surprised I wasnt aware of that passage. Thanks sogba!

[australian]

Is it physically possible to overdose on condescension? I can be a snotty, patronizing bitch sometimes, but that's just sickening.

... well it makes more sense after watching his presentation, in which he expresses a lot of frustration.

Im between a rock and a hard place really. If I dont say sweet things, I get labelled as hateful, and if I do say nice things, my words get labelled as sickening. But I realise it's a difficult topic.

[Arete]

Paul has no concept of same sex love because the concept does not EXIST in his time and place. There is no model of consensual, same sex coupling in the ancient Greek or Jewish world. Philo is describing PEDERASTY and catamites as they existed in the ancient world. Pederasty by it's very definition is a relationship of inequality, dominance, and humiliation. Catamites were connected to ritual cults of prostitution. Nero was bisexual and practiced incest. The behavior of Nero, the practice of pederasty, and the existence of catamites in the ancient world that Paul was familiar with cannot be equated with mutually consenting adults cherishing each other as life partners, pledging life long sexual fidelity, and sharing each others burdens in the 21st century.

Edited to add ritual prostitution to the list of practices in the ancient world that Paul would be familiar with.

[formergothardite]

I largely covered these issues in a post at the top of page 6 of this thread, and the slavery issue a bit earlier in the thread. Im not aware of the Bible ever advocating forced abortions.

Actually you didn't really discuss the slavery issue, because as I pointed out, if you loved your others as you love yourself, you would help them without enslaving them. You cannot enslave someone while at the same time loving them as you love yourself. So the Bible contradicts itself.

So someone on the internet disagrees with you. That is why you are here. His disagreeing with you doesn't end up hurting anyone, yet you go so far to say that he isn't really a Christian and isn't living a Christian lifestyle if they are gay, get married, and have sex. While at the same time you are refusing to take Luke 3:11 literally in your own life for no apparent reason besides, "I just don't feel like it". Disobeying that verse actually does hurt people, yet you are all wrapped up on proving something that hurts no one is a sin. I think your priorities might be a little off.

[formergothardite]

Wow Im surprised I wasnt aware of that passage. Thanks sogba!

Why am I not surprised that someone who comes here accusing people of "not being real Christians" doesn't know the Bible that well. Australian, people here know the Bible front to back and inside out and we have found that most of the christians who come here to tell us that we are all wrong, don't actually know the Bible that well.