- This topic has 883 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 06 2009,16:28) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34291794/ns/us_news-faith/ L.A. Episcopalians elect gay assistant bishop
Rev. Mary Glasspool still needs approval from national leadersProgress or Abomination?
ConstOf course it is an abomination, homosexuality by it self is an abomination.
Georg
Did anyone on this page even consider not judging and condemning this situation. The very person called lord of all, prince of peace, Jesus the Christ didn't judge or condemn the lady caught in the act of adultry and if Jesus was following the law, she should have been stoned!!
If he refused to condemn that lady are we greater judges? Or are we dispicable?
There is therefore now, no condemnation for those in Christ. Anyone who is condemning a gay person is not in Christ. Anyone, condemning
anyone for anything, should recall that one who judges another and condemns them, forsakes their own cleansing and is judged by their own judgement unto themselves.All condemnation finds its place in death and destruction. TK
Quote (Tim Kraft @ Dec. 15 2009,03:06) Did anyone on this page even consider not judging and condemning this situation. The very person called lord of all, prince of peace, Jesus the Christ didn't judge or condemn the lady caught in the act of adultry and if Jesus was following the law, she should have been stoned!! If he refused to condemn that lady are we greater judges? Or are we dispicable?
There is therefore now, no condemnation for those in Christ. Anyone who is condemning a gay person is not in Christ. Anyone, condemning
anyone for anything, should recall that one who judges another and condemns them, forsakes their own cleansing and is judged by their own judgement unto themselves.All condemnation finds its place in death and destruction. TK
Did the lady caught in the act of adultery continue in adultery?Did the lady caught in the act of adultery continue in adultery and become Bishop of a church?
Con: Neither of us know whether she continued or not! Its doesn't matter. But if adultry was against the law of Moses then Jesus broke the law of Moses or established a new law.
Belief always comes first to a person and then from that belief an action is created. IE: Adam partook or accepted or believed and then began to create evil. There was no evil before. His works were not evil works yet they were fear based thoughts of how to pacify or make amends to God. They were man created thoughts and ideas. God did not require offerings and sacrifices.
If anyone looks upon others and makes assessments as to their Godliness he is sitting in judgement of himself only.
If Jesus did not take away sin from the world then judgement must remain. Good would be chosen over bad.
Judgement is more like opinions or choices to me. We judge for ourselves or make choices 24/7! It is when a man condems another as having done something against God that cause much problems in this life because the judgement you use against the other will be brought to you. We have no business telling anyone that what they are doing or have done is wrong in the site of God.
We are masters only of ourselves.
Unless we judge in righteous judgment. I agree with Gods word that all are the righteousness of God by faith. Bless you, TK
Quote (Tim Kraft @ Dec. 15 2009,07:07) Con: Neither of us know whether she continued or not! Its doesn't matter. But if adultry was against the law of Moses then Jesus broke the law of Moses or established a new law. Belief always comes first to a person and then from that belief an action is created. IE: Adam partook or accepted or believed and then began to create evil. There was no evil before. His works were not evil works yet they were fear based thoughts of how to pacify or make amends to God. They were man created thoughts and ideas. God did not require offerings and sacrifices.
If anyone looks upon others and makes assessments as to their Godliness he is sitting in judgement of himself only.
If Jesus did not take away sin from the world then judgement must remain. Good would be chosen over bad.
Judgement is more like opinions or choices to me. We judge for ourselves or make choices 24/7! It is when a man condems another as having done something against God that cause much problems in this life because the judgement you use against the other will be brought to you. We have no business telling anyone that what they are doing or have done is wrong in the site of God.
We are masters only of ourselves.
Unless we judge in righteous judgment. I agree with Gods word that all are the righteousness of God by faith. Bless you, TK
So electing Gay Bishops is ok under the New Law?So Yeshua HaMoshiach does not want any judgments on who can serve as an elect body of a church?
Quote (Tim Kraft @ Dec. 15 2009,07:07) Con: Neither of us know whether she continued or not! Its doesn't matter. But if adultry was against the law of Moses then Jesus broke the law of Moses or established a new law. Belief always comes first to a person and then from that belief an action is created. IE: Adam partook or accepted or believed and then began to create evil. There was no evil before. His works were not evil works yet they were fear based thoughts of how to pacify or make amends to God. They were man created thoughts and ideas. God did not require offerings and sacrifices.
If anyone looks upon others and makes assessments as to their Godliness he is sitting in judgement of himself only.
If Jesus did not take away sin from the world then judgement must remain. Good would be chosen over bad.
Judgement is more like opinions or choices to me. We judge for ourselves or make choices 24/7! It is when a man condems another as having done something against God that cause much problems in this life because the judgement you use against the other will be brought to you. We have no business telling anyone that what they are doing or have done is wrong in the site of God.
We are masters only of ourselves.
Unless we judge in righteous judgment. I agree with Gods word that all are the righteousness of God by faith. Bless you, TK
Quote Unless we judge in righteous judgment. I agree with Gods word that all are the righteousness of God by faith. Bless you, TK So as long as a practicing gay has faith in 'elohim then that gay has all the righteousness of 'elohim?
Quote We have no business telling anyone that what they are doing or have done is wrong in the site of God. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Hi CON,
Such ORGANISATIONS bear no relationship to Christ.
Why would we bother to join Belial with Christ?[1Cor10]Hey Nich: Welcome the accusor of the bretheren. Satan commeth immediately.
Con: It would seem to me that you are trying to establish rules of etiquette for actions on earth that one can do to please or displease God. IMO, God is looking for someone who will believe his words. If you believe his words he has cleansed you by the word, healed you by the word, ordained you, sanctified you, made you whole and complete. Not based on anything you have done on earth, or will do in the future on earth. Believing God or Elohim or whatever name or title you wish to describe the indescribable is not just knowing that he exists. Believing in Jesus is believing what he says.From the beginning mans connection to God was by faith. Perfection by faith. In the face of accusors and devils which come to take away that word which is in ones heart. Peace comes from believing that Jesus cleansed me. I don't have to wonder if it was good enough. I don't have to wonder if it did the trick! All one has to do is believe what he says. Jesus cleanseth us from sin. Not from our works where we could boast.He is not judging you for those anyway. He did the work. It is finished, if you believe Jesus took away our sin. We are supposed to be growing up in God but are yet waiting for Jesus to return and do more. He is here now. You know he is. You talk to him often. He hears you and talks to you and you know it. He can't get any closer!!!
Now there are all kinds of laws and rules and regulations in this world. But IMO they have no effect on your relationship with God. You are not being judged by that criteria! Gods judgment is righteousness by faith. God Bless you, TK
“This is grossly improper practice,” he told me. “She’s imposing prayer and using evidence-free techniques. The whole approach towards the subject of sexual abuse is extremely unprofessional. Leading [and] suggestion in a therapeutic situation is the absolute antithesis of what an exploration of sexual abuse should be about. It’s the base of many of these false memory syndromes. She should not be able to get referrals from a GP. Her membership of the BACP should be immediately revoked.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news….47.html
Stuart
If a person wants to be converted then that is their prerogative. People go to all kinds of counselling for all kinds of things, and I don't think anyone is forcing it upon them. If it was being forced, then I would disagree.
For what it is worth, all gay people I personally know (and also know about their backgrounds) had either sexual abuse, mental abuse, or other physical abuse when they were younger. I obviously do not speak for all gay people that is certain, and I also do not speak for all abused people, but what I am saying is that if their gayness was contributed by abuse of some kind, then it is their prerogative to get some counselling is it not?
I also do not know anything about the counselling in question as I haven't bothered to read it, so I am not supporting it by reason of not knowing anything about it, but my point is that people can receive counselling for anything they want in a free world, so it is not so unbelievable to me, as it might be to a politically correct person.
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 09 2009,16:00) The keyword here is “preference”. Until you are in another's shoes, do not presume to say what is right or wrong is this particular component of life.
I am not passing judgement, but where do you draw the line? Some people have preference for children. Does having preference make it right? I say no.Preference is not always right or good.
Many prefer to sin for example. So sin is OK, now?
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 08 2010,00:02) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 09 2009,16:00) The keyword here is “preference”. Until you are in another's shoes, do not presume to say what is right or wrong is this particular component of life.
I am not passing judgement, but where do you draw the line? Some people have preference for children. Does having preference make it right? I say no.Preference is not always right or good.
Many prefer to sin for example. So sin is OK, now?
We are talking about consenting adults, this has already been covered. Please pay attention.Please pay attention KJ.
I am making the simple point that not all desires or preferences are good. That is it.
Does nature's design teach that men and women were designed to have sexual intercourse? Nature also teaches that cows eat grass and soil is for growing plants. Often when you change the intention of the design, you can get undesirable consequences like mad cows disease or unfertile soil. For example, is it a coincidence that homosexuals, drug addicts, or heterosexuals with many sexual partners have suffered greatly from the AIDS virus?
A simple and unemotional example demonstrating that preference or desires are not always good, is a businesses that pollutes to save money instead of paying to dispose or breakdown their waste. The preference is to save money which is not a bad thing in itself, but the consequence of that is destruction or spoiling of nature.
But to take your consenting argument, even that doesn't always mean good. A business and a government might consent to allowing waste to pour out untreated into a river. Great, now we have two consenting parties and a polluted environment.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 09 2010,13:21) Please pay attention KJ. I am making the simple point that not all desires or preferences are good. That is it.
Does nature's design teach that men and women were designed to have sexual intercourse? Nature also teaches that cows eat grass and soil is for growing plants. Often when you change the intention of the design, you can get undesirable consequences like mad cows disease or unfertile soil. For example, is it a coincidence that homosexuals, drug addicts, or heterosexuals with many sexual partners have suffered greatly from the AIDS virus?
A simple and unemotional example demonstrating that preference or desires are not always good, is a businesses that pollutes to save money instead of paying to dispose or breakdown their waste. The preference is to save money which is not a bad thing in itself, but the consequence of that is destruction or spoiling of nature.
But to take your consenting argument, even that doesn't always mean good. A business and a government might consent to allowing waste to pour out untreated into a river. Great, now we have two consenting parties and a polluted environment.
In the case of a couple of consenting adults, all the affected parties have given their consent. In the case of pollution that has not happened.BTW, humans were not designed at all.
Is it a coincidence that tennis players get tennis elbow? Does that make tennis undesirable in your view?
Stuart
Quote n the case of pollution that has not happened.
What you fail to see is that people are harming themselves. Even worse, sometimes they are helping spread possible disease to others. Contamination can end up in someone's blood supply in a blood transfusion to someone else for instance. So the innocent can suffer indirectly in a number of ways and statistically they have.So you might say, so what, they harm themselves. But my point is to not encourage people to hurt themselves or risk the lives or health of others.
If an adult decides to use a needle to apply drugs, a person decides to commit fornication or adultery, or in the case of sexual relations between consenting gay men, then they risk AIDS and other diseases. That is a fact.
Consent, preference, or desires, are not all good. That is my point. You can argue it till the cows come home, but disease happens for a reason and it is not really a good idea to invite it.
But sure, ultimately if people want to risk destroying themselves, then they will do it in the name of freedom and preference. I am just not encouraging it. I would make the same argument for speeding or drink driving for example.
As far as your tennis example. Well yes there is risk, but the risk is low and the consequences are minor and you are not hurting anyone else. So I wouldn't worry about that. Feel free to run around a tennis court if you wish. The exercise most likely out weighs any risk of a sore joint or limb. In fact it is probably more harmful to not do it, or other similar activities that involve exercise.
Anyway, this advice comes free, but please consult a medical professional for further enquiries.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 10 2010,01:14) Quote n the case of pollution that has not happened.
What you fail to see is that people are harming themselves. Even worse, sometimes they are helping spread possible disease to others. Contamination can end up in someone's blood supply in a blood transfusion to someone else for instance. So the innocent can suffer indirectly in a number of ways and statistically they have.So you might say, so what, they harm themselves. But my point is to not encourage people to hurt themselves or risk the lives or health of others.
If an adult decides to use a needle to apply drugs, a person decides to commit fornication or adultery, or in the case of sexual relations between consenting gay men, then they risk AIDS and other diseases. That is a fact.
Consent, preference, or desires, are not all good. That is my point. You can argue it till the cows come home, but disease happens for a reason and it is not really a good idea to invite it.
But sure, ultimately if people want to risk destroying themselves, then they will do it in the name of freedom and preference. I am just not encouraging it. I would make the same argument for speeding or drink driving for example.
As far as your tennis example. Well yes there is risk, but the risk is low and the consequences are minor and you are not hurting anyone else. So I wouldn't worry about that. Feel free to run around a tennis court if you wish. The exercise most likely out weighs any risk of a sore joint or limb. In fact it is probably more harmful to not do it, or other similar activities that involve exercise.
Anyway, this advice comes free, but please consult a medical professional for further enquiries.
So much for free will then. You would like to remove that “god-given” and presumably “essential to salvation” capacity from some people by the look of it.Stuart
No. Free will extends to God allowing people to break human law, physical law, and spiritual law. Free will allows men to jump out of aeroplanes without parachutes allowing the law of gravity to destroy them.
God doesn't stop people from destroying themselves. He respects their will.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 11 2010,10:11) No. Free will extends to God allowing people to break human law, physical law, and spiritual law. Free will allows men to jump out of aeroplanes without parachutes allowing the law of gravity to destroy them. God doesn't stop people from destroying themselves. He respects their will.
But you don't. How ungodly of you.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
