Bruce Jenner is a pervert

[Lon]

You'll have to be a little LESS vague here Lon.

That discipline and correction and in this case, even punishment, doesn't disclude God's love.

I don't hate Bruce. I would tell him how his sin separates him from God and what Christ has done.

I would not have a problem quoting those OT verses.

 

[StanJ]

It's a shame you don't just stop digging that hole. :nono:

Well I call them like I see them. I'm 6'4" so I can handle a big hole. :cigar:

 

[Angel4Truth]

You think you can be a little less vague also? You're ALL over the place here.

You mean you cant back your opinion with scripture and i can.

 

[StanJ]

That discipline and correction and in this case, even punishment, doesn't disclude God's love.

Never said it did, and this case in Acts 5, was about lying to the Holy Spirit in Peter, which was why they died. Something Jesus made clear in Luke 12:10 (NIV) how important honouring the Holy Spirit was.

 

[StanJ]

I just showed you the law on it. Show me where Christ ever violated the law and which one He violated.

I never said He violated the law, I did imply He put it in PROPER perspective. Do you not believe He was/is God and KNEW the true intent of the law?

Going from vague to specific from post to post, is a trait of an equivocator.
I have a real problem with people who equivocate. To me, it is the SAME as lying.

 

[StanJ]

You mean you cant back your opinion with scripture and i can.

No, I said what I meant. Can you be less vague?

 

[glorydaz]

Well I call them like I see them. I'm 6'4" so I can handle a big hole. :cigar:

Sometimes it's better to take a bite of pie so that hole gets plugged before it gets you into trouble. :juggle:

 

[StanJ]

Sometimes it's better to take a bite of pie so that hole gets plugged before it gets you into trouble. :juggle:

Well as I wasn't being pious, no need to eat any. I'm not in trouble, just obviously making some.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I never said He violated the law, I did imply He put it in PROPER perspective. Do you not believe He was/is God and KNEW the true intent of the law?

yes, that it required 2 or 3 witnesses and the man should have been brought too, since they claimed to be witnesses to the very act.

Going from vague to specific from post to post, is a trait of an equivocator.
I have a real problem with people who equivocate. To me, it is the SAME as lying.

Which is what you have been doing with your false claims of vagueness, ignoring questions to you, and refusing to back your claims with scripture, everything Ive claimed has been backed up.

Again, show me one law, that Christ violated and back with scripture like i did, and i speak english, nothing in the world vague or unclear here.

 

[glorydaz]

Well as I wasn't being pious, no need to eat any. I'm not in trouble, just obviously making some.

You ever know a guy who was making a fool of himself and you tried to warn him? Just saying.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You dont understand the scriptures, you dont understand that passage. Christianity started AFTER the cross, Jesus kept every point of the law without fail in even one point.

I understand far more than you give me credit for.

Show me where Jesus said that and practised that.

Deuteronomy 17:1 "You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God an ox or a sheep which has a blemish or any defect, for that is a detestable thing to the LORD your God.

1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

1 Peter 2:22
22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.

1 John 3:4
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Christ followed the law completely if he transgressed the law in any point He would not have been without sin because sin is a transgression of the law.

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

And what did Jesus say about the law?


Matthew 5:18

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[intojoy]

Jesus did not forgive the adulterous woman. He did not condemn her to death by stoning based on a flaw in the accusations that required the first stone be thrown by one who had not done adultery themselves. If He gave her a pass on the adultery then the Jews could have stoned Him.

 

[achduke]

Jesus did not forgive the adulterous woman. He did not condemn her to death by stoning based on a flaw in the accusations that required the first stone be thrown by one who had not done adultery themselves. If He gave her a pass on the adultery then the Jews could have stoned Him.

The man must be present to be stoned also. Lastly it takes the witness of two to condemn someone to death. They had none of these and had no legal right to stone her.

 

[rocketman]

Not at all.
Obsolete in terms of it's legality, but much of it still pertinent as far as knowing God is concerned.

Knowing God? or understanding how God sees particular behavior? The crime is the same now as then, the cure is the only change.

Not the Christians job to vilify sinners, and why is exhorting/chastening people to NOT condemn/judge/vilify unbelievers mean I accept their sin?

The sin is disgusting and vile and should not be skirted around under the guise of love. Open Rebuke is better than secret love...If you love them than you will rebuke them openly...where did you get this milk toast, mamby pamby form of love anyway?

How did you arrive at the erroneous assumption?
Jesus only called out the Pharisees, but He preaches to sinners collectively, NOT individually.

What did Christ tell the sinner? Did he just have this loving discussion or did he tell them to go and sin no more? Jesus loathed the pharisee for a much different reason, and it wasn't because they were not standing for righteousness but, their hypocrisy of righteousness.

How exactly is advocating Jesus' #1 command being apostate, or is that all you can do is throw ad hominems around?

Ad Homs? I was calling your acceptance of evil apostate, Jenners sin should be called out publicly...even to his face for what it is...that is love. To allow this man to enter hell because of your fear of offense is the real crime. Yes, he, Jenner, needs to know Christ and His love but, to placate him as not offend, that is a dereliction of your duty sir. The use of apostate wasn't an ad hom it was presenting fact of the failure of the Christian church today accepting sin under the guise of love, and that you are obviously not equipped to handle.

I sense an awful lot of hatred/vehemence in your words. ARE you an actual Christian, or just a troll?

Hatred no, vehement yes...I am disgusted with so-called Christians accepting pop culture's vile lifestyles while proclaiming love...it isn't love to escort sinners to the gates of hell because you are afraid to offend them by calling out their vile acts for what they are. Personally I could really care less if you consider me a Christian or not...I don't answer to you...Just sayin. lain:

 

[StanJ]

You ever know a guy who was making a fool of himself and you tried to warn him? Just saying.

No I normally let people who are making a fool of themselves do so.

 

[StanJ]

yes, that it required 2 or 3 witnesses and the man should have been brought too, since they claimed to be witnesses to the very act.

Which is what you have been doing with your false claims of vagueness, ignoring questions to you, and refusing to back your claims with scripture, everything Ive claimed has been backed up.

Again, show me one law, that Christ violated and back with scripture like i did, and i speak english, nothing in the world vague or unclear here.

What exactly is the problem here AT? That you don't like being wrong or just don't like me? Is it because you're a woman and have to have the last word? If you keep reframing the issue I can't be expected to keep up.

 

[StanJ]

Jesus did not forgive the adulterous woman. He did not condemn her to death by stoning based on a flaw in the accusations that required the first stone be thrown by one who had not done adultery themselves. If He gave her a pass on the adultery then the Jews could have stoned Him.

Well I'm pretty sure "Go and sin nor more" would be forgiving her, but sadly this has gone WAY off topic because some people don't like being chastised or rebuked. The issue is condemning and vilifying an unbeliever, NOT IF Jesus did it right or not.

 

[StanJ]

And what did Jesus say about the law?
Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

and where does Jesus say the NT started AFTER the cross?
You sure do like to ADD issues, but I'm not that easily distracted by extraneous posts AT.

 

[StanJ]

Knowing God? or understanding how God sees particular behavior? The crime is the same now as then, the cure is the only change.

Same thing to me. If you KNOW God you know how He feels about sin. Obviously the NC is a NEW way of dealing with sin.

The sin is disgusting and vile and should not be skirted around under the guise of love. Open Rebuke is better than secret love...If you love them than you will rebuke them openly...where did you get this milk toast, mamby pamby form of love anyway?

You're talking about two different issues here. Why equivocate?
Where exactly are you admonished or instructed to openly rebuke an unbeliever? I'm rather taken aback at your insistence on condemning others., and trying to justify it. Seems your motto fits your personality well. Treating others as stupid FIRST just indicates what YOU will reap.

What did Christ tell the sinner? Did he just have this loving discussion or did he tell them to go and sin no more? Jesus loathed the pharisee for a much different reason, and it wasn't because they were not standing for righteousness but, their hypocrisy of righteousness.

What sinner? hat is recorded mostly is his instructions to GO and sin nor more. You ASSUME it was condemning and harsh, and you know what they say about ASSuming?

Ad Homs? I was calling your acceptance of evil apostate, Jenners sin should be called out publicly...even to his face for what it is...that is love. To allow this man to enter hell because of your fear of offense is the real crime. Yes, he, Jenner, needs to know Christ and His love but, to placate him as not offend, that is a dereliction of your duty sir. The use of apostate wasn't an ad hom it was presenting fact of the failure of the Christian church today accepting sin under the guise of love, and that you are obviously not equipped to handle.

Yeh do you know what it means?
I never accepted Jenner's sin...but that's the typical response I get from judgemental people like you, EQUIVOCATION. YOU can't tell the difference between loving people and not loving their sin, because you lump the sin and the sinner in together. Good thing God didn't do that when He sent His Son to the WORLD He so LOVED.

Hatred no, vehement yes...I am disgusted with so-called Christians accepting pop culture's vile lifestyles while proclaiming love...it isn't love to escort sinners to the gates of hell because you are afraid to offend them by calling out their vile acts for what they are. Personally I could really care less if you consider me a Christian or not...I don't answer to you...Just sayin.

LOL...you want us to believe that public vilification of a person is LOVE?
Read 1 Cor 13, there is NO vilification in love.
If YOU want to blast someone for their sin them have the guts to admit it's YOU, and don't use God as an excuse.

 

[glorydaz]

No I normally let people who are making a fool of themselves do so.

Oh, then I'll just sit back and watch you do so. opcorn: