Is calling Beanieboy a . . .

[Ecumenicist]

There is nothing new under the Sun.

Try drinking milk right from the cow and cold pastuerized milk. Quite a difference...

 

[Delmar]

Try drinking milk right from the cow and cold pastuerized milk. Quite a difference...

What does that have to do with human behaviour?

 

[BillyBob]

This thread is a runaway train! :chuckle:

 

[Lighthouse]

which of the "no's" aren't christians?

Quite a few don't even profess Christianity. Dread Helm listed all the voters, at one point. Some more people have voted since then, though.

 

[Crow]

No arguments here. Sexual immorality, hetero or homo, is promiscuous in nature.

Hey Crow, I agree 100% with your post! Halelujia!

Edited: Except for the dispensation stuff. I don't believe God's relationship with humanity
has changed, I don't believe that God has changed. I believe Jesus CHrist came to
help us understand better how God meant for us to understand GOd's Laws and
Scripture. Christ Himself said He came to fulfill the law, not overthrow it. That means
putting it in the right perspective.

Dave

I'm glad we can agree on some things. But yikes, look at the one's we don't agree on.

Homosexuality in and of itself is wrong.

God's relationship with us does change when we are saved. Before, we are cut off, outside of His will. Once we are saved, we are His. And Christ came to provide the sacrifice that makes our salvation possible, not to help us understand the Law. That's backwards--the Law was our tutor to understand our need for Christ.

The Law doesn't apply to us as Christians. It has served it's purpose for those who are saved, and still is there for those who are not and need it's lesson.

I know, it's off topic, but I'm getting flashbacks to how methodism inspired me to become an atheist.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Quite a few don't even profess Christianity. Dread Helm listed all the voters, at one point. Some more people have voted since then, though.

click the number up by the votes and you can see who voted what. i was asking which people of those specifically were not christian to see if your statement that it would "balance the other way" was true.

 

[Ecumenicist]

Buddhism doesn't worship Buddha.
Read about it. The majority of it is similar to what Christ taught.

And its not necessarily incompatible with being a Christian. Balder has
demonstrated over and over how certain Buddhist teachings strive for the
heart of Christ.

Do I think that being gay isn't a sin because I am? No. Sometimes I smoke. That's bad for my body. I know that. I just do sometimes any way. Sometimes I get angry and use bad language out of anger. Do I think it isn't a sin because I do it? No. I know that it is wrong, and it is bad to let my emotions get the better of me.

But I can't find any negative consequence on being homosexual. None.

I won't agree with you totally here. The concensus among homosexual people that
I know of is that no one in their right mind would choose to become homosexual.
There's alot of pain and seperation experienced by homosexual people and their
families. Granted, this is mostly due to societal prejudice, but not completely.
Homosexuality is an anomally compared to the general population, and this
can cause identity crises not only for homosexual people, but for their families as
well, even the most understanding and accepting families.

God loves gay people, but God bless people with homosexual dispositions who choose
not to act on them, not for themselves and "fear of damnation," but for the people they
love. Denying one's self on behalf of others is a truely Christian sacrifice.

Dave

 

[Ecumenicist]

What does that have to do with human behaviour?

Who pasteurizes milk???? Humans!!!!

Let me ask you this, is there a difference between hiring a prostitute and having
conjugal relations with one's wife? Both hetero sex, sex hasn't changed since
the beginning of time.

 

[Ecumenicist]

I'm glad we can agree on some things. But yikes, look at the one's we don't agree on.

Homosexuality in and of itself is wrong.

God's relationship with us does change when we are saved. Before, we are cut off, outside of His will.

Then why would the good shephard bother to leave his flock of 99 to find the lost
one? If Christ is to be believed, God loves the lost as much or more than the saved.

Once we are saved, we are His. And Christ came to provide the sacrifice that makes our salvation possible, not to help us understand the Law. That's backwards--the Law was our tutor to understand our need for Christ.

Goes both ways, that's the beauty of it. Yes, teh law informs us of how much we need
Christ. But Christ also came to fulfill the law, He preached the Law, He helped us
understand how we should interpret the law. You may call it a new dispensation, I
call it breathing new life into old laws, Christ called it fulfilling the law.

We commonly understand "eye for an eye" bringing justice to a victim. Christ taught
us that we are convicted so that we may know the hurt we cause others. Eye for an
eye is for the good of the sinner as well. Christ took the physical punishment
on our behalf, but we are still left with teh conviction of the Holy Spirit, which has the
same effect, even more profound. A person struck by the Holy Spirit feels true
contrition, a person who is punished physically may be left with just empty bitterness...
Christ came to fulfill the intent of the law...

The Law doesn't apply to us as Christians. It has served it's purpose for those who are saved, and still is there for those who are not and need it's lesson.

I know, it's off topic, but I'm getting flashbacks to how methodism inspired me to become an atheist.

Oh bunk. THe law applies, what's changed is our motivation, that's what Paul was
trying to say, same as Christ tried to say. We used to obey the law out of fear and duty,
now we obey out of gratitude and love of God. Either way, we're not free to rape and
pillage and murder.

Dave

 

[Lighthouse]

click the number up by the votes and you can see who voted what. i was asking which people of those specifically were not christian to see if your statement that it would "balance the other way" was true.

No:
Agape4Robin, Aimiel, allsmiles, avatar382, beanieboy, beefalobilly, Berean Todd, Caille, Caledvwlch, Carver, cattyfan, Chileice, Dave Miller, freelight, God_Is_Truth, granite1010, Holly, ilyatur, Jabez, jeremiah, Jujubee, julie21, karstkid, ktjo, logos_x, Lovejoy, lulu, On Fire, Redfin, seagull, Sold Out, SUTG, temple 2000, The Edge, Thia, wickwoman, Ya'nar#1

Yes:
aikido7, BillyBob, Christine, Clete, Crow, deardelmar, docrob57, Dread Helm, Emo, Freak, Free-Agent Smith, Lighthouse, Lucky, Mr. 5020, Poly, ShadowMaid, Shimei, SOTK, the Sibbie, Turbo, Wamba the Fool, wholearmor

Everybody who voted yes professes to be a Christian. Although, I'm surprised aikido voted yes.:liberals:

Anyway, that's 22.

Out of the people who voted no, there are eight people I know, for certain, that do not profess Christianity. Some I don't know where they stand. And out of the people who actually stand for the word of God, as far as I've seen, there are only fourteen of them that voted no, including you. And out of the others who profess Christ, that I know of, there are four whose views of God have been questioned by quite a few. There are 24 that I believe profess Christianity. So I guess it wouldn't tip the other way, but it would be closer. And if you removed professing Christians who didn't think homosexuality was a sin, there would be less.

 

[Crow]

Then why would the good shephard bother to leave his flock of 99 to find the lost
one? If Christ is to be believed, God loves the lost as much or more than the saved.

God desires that all come to Him. But the lost are still not saved.

Goes both ways, that's the beauty of it. Yes, teh law informs us of how much we need
Christ. But Christ also came to fulfill the law, He preached the Law, He helped us
understand how we should interpret the law. You may call it a new dispensation, I
call it breathing new life into old laws, Christ called it fulfilling the law.

Matt 5
17"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

The Law is fulfilled and the Law will not pass until heaven and earth pass away.
The Law is fulfilled for those who accept Christ as Savior.
All else are still under the Law.

Christ came to fulfill the intent of the law...

Galatians 3:23-25
before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Christ came so that mankind could be saved by grace through faith. His perfect sacrifice was the only one which could accomplish this. Christ is the only one who can save anyone. The Law was there to as a tool, a tutor to accomplish this, not the other way around. The Law is fulfilled when a person accepts Christ. He is the whole reason for the Law, not the other way around.

Oh bunk. THe law applies, what's changed is our motivation, that's what Paul was
trying to say, same as Christ tried to say. We used to obey the law out of fear and duty,
now we obey out of gratitude and love of God. Either way, we're not free to rape and
pillage and murder.

Dave

Romans 6:14
14For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.

We are not free to rape, pillage, and murder, or to be immoral. These things are wicked and were wicked before the Law was given. The wickedness for which God destroyed the majority of mankind in the flood occurred prior to the Law being given. It was wrong for Cain to slay Abel prior to the Law being given.

Dave, if y'all want to discuss this stuff, I'll be happy to start a thread. Just let me know. I don't want to hijack this one.

 

[BillyBob]

Although, I'm surprised aikido voted yes.:liberals:

Yeah, he must have hit the wrong button, he thought it said 'Hillary for President'.


Crack does that to ya.....:dizzy:

 

[Lighthouse]

God desires that all come to Him. But the lost are still not saved.



Matt 5
17"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

The Law is fulfilled and the Law will not pass until heaven and earth pass away.
The Law is fulfilled for those who accept Christ as Savior.
All else are still under the Law.



Galatians 3:23-25
before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Christ came so that mankind could be saved by grace through faith. His perfect sacrifice was the only one which could accomplish this. Christ is the only one who can save anyone. The Law was there to as a tool, a tutor to accomplish this, not the other way around. The Law is fulfilled when a person accepts Christ. He is the whole reason for the Law, not the other way around.


Romans 6:14
14For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.

We are not free to rape, pillage, and murder, or to be immoral. These things are wicked and were wicked before the Law was given. The wickedness for which God destroyed the majority of mankind in the flood occurred prior to the Law being given. It was wrong for Cain to slay Abel prior to the Law being given.

:first:SPOTD

 

[Ninjashadow]

I voted yes. The reason I voted yes is because of the words Jesus spoke in Matthew 23:33: "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

Calling someone a snake or a viper was just as bad back then as calling a homosexual a "faggot" is today. Reading that verse in context, you can tell that Jesus wasn't being lovey dovey. Had he been, he would been saying something like, "You silly guys! You crazy people! You might not go to Heaven."

But He didn't. He called them what they were. I sure can't think of anything more Christ like than basically repeating His words.

 

[Lighthouse]

I voted yes. The reason I voted yes is because of the words Jesus spoke in Matthew 23:33: "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

Calling someone a snake or a viper was just as bad back then as calling a homosexual a "faggot" is today. Reading that verse in context, you can tell that Jesus wasn't being lovey dovey. Had he been, he would been saying something like, "You silly guys! You crazy people! You might not go to Heaven."

But He didn't. He called them what they were. I sure can't think of anything more Christ like than basically repeating His words.

:BRAVO:

 

[Ninjashadow]

That last part of His words is a very good question. "How will you escape being condemned to hell?" Let's ask a homosexual that and see what the reply would be.

 

[Lighthouse]

:chuckle:

 

[Frank Ernest]

I voted yes. The reason I voted yes is because of the words Jesus spoke in Matthew 23:33: "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

Calling someone a snake or a viper was just as bad back then as calling a homosexual a "faggot" is today. Reading that verse in context, you can tell that Jesus wasn't being lovey dovey. Had he been, he would been saying something like, "You silly guys! You crazy people! You might not go to Heaven."

But He didn't. He called them what they were. I sure can't think of anything more Christ like than basically repeating His words.

I've followed the conversations and arguments. Now I vote.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Oh, I have no problem with name-calling.

:darwinsm: You and me both, Bro' :BillyBob:!

There would be no flavor in a world where "colorful metaphors" (See Spock, Star Trk IV) are prohibited.

Come to think of it, that's the world of the lie-berals who push the pansyfied version of Jesus. Colorless, odorless, tasteless, a bland sameness about anything and everything. :vomit:

 

[julie21]

I voted yes. The reason I voted yes is because of the words Jesus spoke in Matthew 23:33: "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

Calling someone a snake or a viper was just as bad back then as calling a homosexual a "faggot" is today. Reading that verse in context, you can tell that Jesus wasn't being lovey dovey. Had he been, he would been saying something like, "You silly guys! You crazy people! You might not go to Heaven."

But He didn't. He called them what they were. I sure can't think of anything more Christ like than basically repeating His words.

That is interesting that you say back then, calling someone a 'snake' or 'viper' was just as bad as calling someone a 'faggot'' nowadays. Have you evidence for that Ninja?
Sincerely interested in your arrival at that conclusion and the evidence for it.
Hey, if you'd like to be Christ-like, and basically repeat His words, then call homosexuals snakes or vipers.



Good to see that the 'yes' camp have employed people on the campaign trail.