Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Counterpoint

Ways to get kicked off Townhall

121 Comments
Sunday, September, 02, 2007 10:57 AM The INFORMER writes:

wow....

There's 2 minutes of my life that I'll never get back! haha :)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 02, 2007 12:45 PM BIRDMAN writes:

Glad you are back

Do you want to continue where we were when interrupted?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 02, 2007 1:05 PM animalgirl writes:

Normality

"Homosexual issues are most pressing right now, are they not?"

Let's see:
- In July, more than 175,000 families lost their homes to foreclosure
- In August, 85 soldiers were killed in Iraq, and 1678 were seriously wounded. Close to 2,000 civilians were killed
- More than 40 million people do not have health insurance
- Close to 50% of marriages end in divorce
- The U.S. has the largest per capita prison population in the world, beating out 'unfree' countries like Syria, Iran, and China
- We have 12 million illegal immigrants

Yes!! I can see how the fact that one percent of people want to be treated equally under the law is such a vital issue!!

To be serious: maybe you think it's normal for heterosexual men to constantly cogitate on gay sex.

Strikes me as a little weird.

I would advise them to MOVE ON. There are a few dozen WAY more important issues than a few people wanting equality and dignity.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 02, 2007 1:22 PM animalgirl writes:

Birdman

Ah, what's the point? I don't want to get banned again, and neither of us is going to change the others mind.

I was going to ask, since you are so interested in preserving sexual morality in order to save soul, what you thought about couples who have sex during a woman's time of the month.

I mean, the Bible has JUST as harsh a penalty for those couples as it does for homosexuals. And yet, I think many couples engage in this sin without even KNOWING that it's a sin! They are going to be damned to hell for their sexual immorality, and I doubt even their churches are letting them know!

Don't you think an effort should be made to save these people from the fires of hell, Birdman? Shouldn't the church work to preserve ALL sexual morality? Why have they picked out some strictures, yet leave people in the dark about this serious sin?

Leviticus 20:18
If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 02, 2007 1:31 PM BIRDMAN writes:

I have gone back and started to re-read


I have gone back and started to re-read Romans.

Rom 2:1-4
2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? NIV

Soes that pretty well state your position?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 02, 2007 1:32 PM BIRDMAN writes:

Soes that pretty well state your positio


SB...
So,does that pretty well state your position?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 02, 2007 1:51 PM animalgirl writes:

Birdman

Partly yes.

But I also don't think there's a whole lot of Biblical support for considering as a sin committed, loving homosexuality (as opposed to promiscuous homosexuality, which flowers most in the closet, not the sunlight), as it is practiced today. Since that kind of relationship didn't exist in Biblical times, I think that looking to the Bible on this issue is like looking to the Bible on whether or not we should use electricity. Modern Christians want to hold to this as a sin, but many of them completely disregard other commandments on sexual morality, such as not having sex (or even looking at a woman undressed) during her period.

Regardless, in the grand scheme of things, I think it's a more minor issue, and that the focus on it is damaging to Christians, because it draws so much energy and attention away from the main body of the Gospels.

And I think that is the wisdom behind not only this statement in Romans not to judge, but Christ's on taking the log out of your own eye, and leaving the adulterous woman alone.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 02, 2007 1:58 PM BIRDMAN writes:

Same author - Paul

1 Cor 5:1-5
5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. NIV

This the same concept of consentual sex as you argue for the homosexual. The same loving coupling involved.

Same author as Romans - Paul. He condemns it. He even advocates the dis-fellowship of the guilty parties from the chruch. This action was well accepted in society at the time.

But he judged them. Why?

How can he write Romans chapter 2 and turn around and comdemn the Greeks of Corinth? What is the difference here?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 02, 2007 2:34 PM BIRDMAN writes:

I have to go now


I will beack later for your answer.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 02, 2007 2:35 PM BIRDMAN writes:

I need to proof before transmit.

I will be back later for your answer.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 02, 2007 4:11 PM animalgirl writes:

How?

Because Paul thought so highly of himself he thought that Jesus' laws didn't really apply to him.

How fo you resolve this conflict?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 02, 2007 4:12 PM animalgirl writes:

Also

I must say, the first verse is supported by the Gospels, the second is not. That's wh6 giving Christ primacy over Paul is so important; it helps us to resolve these contradictions.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 02, 2007 9:00 PM animalgirl writes:

silly

"trying to overthrow my culture."

How? By wanting equality?

In the 60s, Southerners also complained that black people who wanted desegregated schools were 'trying to overthrow their culture.'

Maybe, but they were also trying to fight for the Constitution of the U.S., which guarantees equal protection under the law, even if some sub-cultures believe that stigmatizing and abusing a minority group is a central part of their identity.

"In my book, the Katrina disaster, the terrorist disaster, and the immigrant invasion disaster are a result of the homosexual "disaster" AND the heterosexual promiscuity "disaster"."

Well, then you're an idiot.

Katrina was a hurricane, which hit the promiscuous and the chaste equally. Terrorists don't like us because their religion tells them they should be on the top of the heap, and they aren't. Immigration happens because not all parts of the world are ever going to equal, and people want to go to places that are better.

"Civilizations expand ONLY when sexual fidelity is expressed within the bounds of monogamous heterosexual marriage."

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You should have told that to the Romans. Wow you are astonishingly ignorant!!

Romans were very sexually free, they were from the time of the Republic (which was in first century B.C., since I am pretty sure you have NO IDEA). And they colonized almost the entire civilized world over the next 800 years. And influenced Western culture more than the Bible.

That's just one example. There are many others, as anyone with a scrap of world history knows.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 03, 2007 12:19 AM BIRDMAN writes:

True, the first does support the Gospel


But, so does the second. Do you recall when Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more? In 1 Cor 5:1-5 the couple who accepted Jesus at first continued to sin thus violating Jesus' very words.

2 Cor 2:5-11
5 If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent-not to put it too severely. 6 The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. 7 Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. 9 The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10 If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven-if there was anything to forgive-I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, 11 in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes. NIV

2 Cor 2:5-11 is the resolution of problem in 1 Cor 5:1-5

The first lesson is that we the Church (if you, animalgirl, are truly a Christian this includes you) are not to allow sin in our midst. Unfortunately, the Church today has drifted from this concept and does not really obey Jesus' words. We cannot accept and we cannot approve of sin within the body.

The second lesson here is that the church is to accept any repentant sinner; even a Christian who has sinned and temporarily lost his way but corrected his walk.

The problem is that sinners, homosexuals in particular, want us to accept their sin and approve of their actions with no remorse or repentance on their apart; and without their following Jesus. This is also contrary to Jesus' words.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 03, 2007 12:26 AM BIRDMAN writes:

BTW


There are NO contradictions in Scripture. Only a Liberal would make a statement like that hoping the the Scriptures are wrong.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 03, 2007 7:32 AM animalgirl writes:

Birdman

But why such the strong focus on homosexuals, Birdman? There are churches who make a big deal out of kicking out homosexuals who are pastored by people married to a second wife?

Also, what about the question I asked before? Having sex during a woman's period is listed as just as serious a sin as homosexuality in the Old Testament. Why has the church abandoned even teaching about this? Are they not abandoning their flock to the fires of hell?

Why do they focus on the sexual morality of the tiny percentage of people with homosexual inclinations? Wouldn't they serve God better to address the sins committed by more people?

And you have never addressed why you cherry-pick so much; why a single kind of sexual immorality holds so much attention, while you ignore the bulk of the Old Testament laws.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 7:46 AM animalgirl writes:

Rome

So I guess Rome's 'last gasp' lasted about a thousand years, longer than any other 'moral' civilization. What a fool you are.

Also, Rome wasn't really brutal to the people they conquered. They were far LESS brutal than most of the civilizations around them, and life improved considerably for those who fell under Roman rule. Just ask the Jews, who were more protected and free under Roman rule than in almost any other point in history.

Also, the cultural institutions created by the Romans have survived longer than any other culture, forming the basis for our own government (our founding fathers looked VERY respectfully towards Rome, and most wise men do).

But there's clearly no sense in arguing with you--you are extremely ignorant and you have no wish to be educated.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 6:35 PM BIRDMAN writes:

animalgirl and the period


AG: "Also, what about the question I asked before? Having sex during a woman's period is listed as just as serious a sin as homosexuality in the Old Testament. Why has the church abandoned even teaching about this? Are they not abandoning their flock to the fires of hell?"


To be perfectly frank, I do not know anyone having sex during a woman's period. I do not peek into bedroom windows to see what is going on in there. I agree with the homosexuals, and you of course, that what goes on in the bedroom is private. It is between the individuals and God. If it is private, then how should I know about it unless it is brought out into the open?

Of course, the homosexuals do not really want their sex lives to be private. That is why they keep doing the parades letting it all hang out in public. That is why they perform before the cameras with lewd displays that shock. They want to force their 'private' lives on the majority. They want the majority to accept and approve their activities as normal even if it has to be forced compliance by armed government.

Now animalgirl, if you are coming forward to confess a sin, by all means, confess and put that sin behind you never to do it again.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:35 AM animalgirl writes:

Doesn't answer my question

Wait a minute...a little while ago, you were desperately interested in saving people from the fires of hell, and making sure that you were teaching the Word of God.

Now you say that you don't really care about teaching the word of God, as long as people are not being public about their activity. So you ae fine in leaving people in ignorance to sin, as long as they aren't sinning in a parade.

I do NOT believe that you are interested in saving people from hell, or I believe you would teach about ALL of sexual immorality, not focus on ONE commandment that DOES NOT EVEN APPLY TO MOST PEOPLE.

So--are you interested in teaching about the word of God or not?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:42 AM animalgirl writes:

Family

I searched family.org, which has a ton of resources on morality and the Bible's teachings on the family. NOT ONE article about sex during menstruation. A Christian couple could easily be completely ignorant of this commandment. I have never heard a pastor discuss it, it is never discussed by family groups.

Why are all these people abandoning these Christian couples to the fires of hell by not telling them about this important commandment?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 6:42 PM BIRDMAN writes:

What are you babbling about?


I said that I do NOT know anyone who is having sex during a womna's period. If no one is do this sin why should I be concerned? If this is not happening who should we be teaching?

Nobody is standing up in Townhall declaring that we should recognize this activity as normal and healthy. If it is a non-issue, then ... huh?

The question, as I see it, is are you guilty of this sin? If so then repent.

Jesus did not come to abolish that Law (we went over this before, remember?) but to fulfill it. God says in the OT via that Law that the penalty for sin is death; possibly physical but always spiritual. Jesus died on the cross for your sins and my sins. He died for the sins of the world. It is very easy to come to Jesus... all He says is to repent or turn away from those sins and towards Jesus. It is also very difficult... He says to sin no more.

If you repent, you open the door to Jesus. If you then continue to sin, you slam that door in His face and He says "I never knew you."

If you do not repent, then you own your sins and the Laws says you will die. On the day of judgment, you will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

If you repent AND sin no more, Jesus owns those sins you will be saved from that Lake of Fire.

The Law is still in effect. You sin, you die. You repent AND sin no more, you live.

Start to spread the news now that you know it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:58 PM animalgirl writes:

Birdman

But you have never addressed why you ignore so many of the other Old Testament Laws. So you follow the strictures on menstruation--fine. I am assuming that, following Leviticus, you also do not sleep in bed with your wife while she is menstruating and have her seclude herself from society for seven days during that time. And that she only returns to society after sacrificing a dove.

You may. If so, you are in the minority.

But you have never explained why you ignore so many laws. You brazenly admit that you eat pork. You probably eat cheeseburgers. You wear blended fabrics.

Why the cherry-picking? If the law is so important, than why do you ignore the majority of it?
But you have a
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 10:06 PM BIRDMAN writes:

You are intentionally blind


What does Jesus teach about the Law. Take your lessons from any Gospel and the Revelation.

How did Jesus fulfill the Law?

Does that mean that every person on the planet has a 'get out of Hell free card'?

Why are some people still destined to Hell?

You have a Bible. You want to impose your interprettion on me. Fine! Start teaching. But be prepared.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 10:14 PM animalgirl writes:

I have asked you

Time and time again what algorithm you use to choose which laws you pay attention to and which ones you ignore. Time and time again, you have dodged the question. You have even shifted your theology during your discussions with me--at one point saying that the law would not be fulfilled until Christ came again, and then later saying that it is fulfilled (after I pointed out that Scripture was clear on that point), but that non-Christians still need to follow the old law to avoid sinning (though you wouldn't say you would avoid serving bacon to a non-Christian).

But then some Old Law clearly still binds Christians in your mind.

So, if it's clear in your mind, please tell me: if not a jot or tittle will pass away from the law, why do you ignore the majority of the law?

Please. I really want to know. You say that you are bound to teach people the word of God. So you are bound to answer my question. Maybe you'll save me from the fires of Hell.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 10:22 PM BIRDMAN writes:

The Law


says that the penalty for sin is death.

Am I correct?

I do not want to confuse you so I will take one question at a time.

Am I correct in stating that the wages of sin is death?

simple 'yes' or 'no'.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 10:24 PM animalgirl writes:

Birdman

Yes.

Is it going to take ten posts to answer the questions I have already asked a dozen times?

Why can't you be direct?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 10:30 PM BIRDMAN writes:

Jesus fulfilled the Law how?


This is not rocket science.

How did Jesus fulfill the Law?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 10:36 PM animalgirl writes:

Fulfilling

If it's not rocket science, there's no need to go so slowly, unless you're hoping that we will get sidetracked somehow so you won't have to answer the question.

Jesus fulfilled the law by dying.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(Just trying to anticipate and move you along a bit)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 10:40 PM BIRDMAN writes:

Eternal Hell


Rev 20:11-15
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. NIV


Some are destined to eternal Hell Fire. Some are destined to Heaven. What is the deciding criterion?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 10:56 PM animalgirl writes:

small

Whether or not their name is in the book of life.

Quit stalling.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 11:08 PM BIRDMAN writes:

Wait a minute!


Jesus died for the sins of ALL men. Why are some being tossed into the Lake of Fire? And are those being tossed into the Lake of Fire being judged by the Law based on the works they do or by some un-disclosed standard?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 11:14 PM animalgirl writes:

you are tiresome

You have to repent.

Will you please stop going through the tract you hand out and answer my question?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 11:21 PM BIRDMAN writes:

I am no more tiresome than you

and your preset agenda.

You did not answer my question. Were they judged by the Law or by some un-disclosed standard?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 11:24 PM animalgirl writes:

Whyare you working so hard to stall?

You know what? I don't know. Why don't you ditch the Socratic method and tell me what you think instead of stalling with questions.

You say the Law.

So if so, why do you ignore the majority of the Law?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 11:27 PM BIRDMAN writes:

You are stubborn


By what standard are they being judged? The Law or some un-disclosed standard?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 11:31 PM animalgirl writes:

You don't know

Look you have no answer to the question and are trying to get out of having to answer. You're trying to exhaust me with nattering questions because you have no idea how to justify paying attention to highly selection portions of the Law.

I can't stay up all night. If you truly care about my immortal soul, then teach me. If you are going to keep jiving and dodging, I am going to go to bed.

So anyway--the Law. I already answered. Your dodges are getting extreme.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 12:04 AM animalgirl writes:

ah well

Looks like you're running scared. I'm going to go curl up with some Orhan Pamuk. If you keep screwing around, I'm just going to delete this thread. I don't have time for these little games with some dude over the Internet who speaks like Jack Chick.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 12:28 AM BIRDMAN writes:

The Law. Thank you

The Law is still in effect for those who do not believe in (continuous action) Jesus Christ. The problem with the Law is that man cannot keep all of it all the time. That teaching comes from Scripture. Even so, the Law has not been abolished and will not be until the heavens and the earth disappear.

I have no righteousness of my own. My righteousness stems from God not man. It comes thru Jesus Christ because I believe in Him and His death for my sins. He bought me. He redeemed me. Do I ever sin? Unfortunately, yes. But when I step off the strait path I turn again to Him.

According to Paul, we who follow Christ are justified by faith apart from the Law. Abraham was justified for his faith before there were a people known as Hebrews. His justification was before the Hebrews received their Law. Noah was considered a righteous man even before Abraham.

As far as homosexuality is concerned, God found fault with that action even before He gave the Law to the Jews in Leviticus. As far as the sanctity of marriage is concerned, He gave us the model in Adam and Eve – one man and one woman for life. Some of the law is inherent within us from birth. That is because we also inherited from Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil. This knowledge applies to all men, not just Jews.

I am not a Jew. I am a Gentile. I do not live by Jewish Law. I live by Jesus Christ. If I did not live by Jesus, even though a Gentile, I would still be judged by the Law as shown in Revelation for that is what God says will be. I do not need to be circumcised to follow Jesus. I do not need to be Jewish first to follow Jesus. All I need to do is trust in and follow Him.

He says teach. So I teach. I teach what some do not want to hear. But I teach it anyway. I teach because I do not want you or anyone else to miss out on Heaven. Does the fact that some do not want to hear truth trump Jesus’ commission to make disciples and teach? I think not.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 12:39 AM BrianR writes:

Well, AG!

Welcome back! Glad to see you made it!

I'll link your new blog to my Blog Roll.



I don't know why you debate theology; the moment the topic comes up, I'm out the door. It's an impossible argument to win.

You take 10 Christians in a room and throw a Biblical verse at them, and you'll get at least 8 different interpretations. It's like trying to bail out the tide with a sand bucket.

I'd rather have oral surgery without anesthetic.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 12:46 AM BIRDMAN writes:

Just some clarification


When I first asked you if they were judged by the Law or by some un-disclosed standard? Your answer was,

"You know what? I don't know. ... You say the Law."

You refused to answer for yourself. You put the words into my mouth.

YouR follow-up response was,

"So anyway--the Law. I already answered."

In fact, this was the first time you spoke for yourself and admitted that it was the Law instead of trying to put the answer on me.

The point is you did not "already" answer.

Just a small point I wanted to make.

I notice that this is one of your tactics you employ in your style. You and I can have a fine discussion if you will speak your mind and let me speak for myself.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 9:20 AM animalgirl writes:

Pathetic

Here's the thing, Birdman--I have asked what YOU think.

But you are too much of a coward to just state what you think (or more likely, you are unable to answer the question as to what justification you have used to cherry pick the law).

So since you can't answer the question, you want to drag the discussion all over the place, hoping we will get drawn off the topic so you won't ever have to answer my questions.

I have tried to answer your questions. But you have steadfastly refused to answer mine. Because you have no answers.

Because you have selectively picked out certain laws--focusing on ones that don't really apply to you, as I am assuming you do not have homosexual tendencies--and used those to scapegoat certain people. The more difficult laws set forth by Jesus(like love your enemy, or turn the other cheek, or pray in private and not in public) you blithely ignore (who wouldn't want to ignore these laws?? They are much harder to follow than for a straight person to avoid homosexual sex).

And the majority of Old Testament Laws (dietary restrictions, commandments on how to deal with menstruating women (i.e., not sleeping in the same bed, setting them apart from society), commandments on clothing--you ignore these, as well.

And you have no idea why. You've just been told you can. And when asked why you ignore some or not others, all you can do is run through text from religious tracts, hoping the question will go away.

But you've given me the answer Birdman, the answer you won't say:

You have no freaking clue.

And you're hoping you can just blather on about other things and never have to think about or answer this question.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 1:23 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Animal girl

Just as a comparison: have you ever been to Daily Kos?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 3:59 PM animalgirl writes:

So let me try to unravel

...your nonsense.

You say you believe in the Law.

But you don't. You don't have to live by Jewish law, you say. You live by Jesus Christ, and are justified apart from the law.

So you feel free to ignore all the laws you want.

So why can a Christian not be gay? You, as a Christian, can eat pork, so a Christian should also be able to settle down with a same-sex partner. All they need to do is trust in and follow Him. They are justified apart from the law.

Jesus Christ never mentioned homosexuality. We should focus on following HIS law, not cherry-picking the Old Testament.

Yes, he said teach. But to love is more important. And if your idea of 'teaching' is trying to take health care away from children who are being raised by gay parents or to fire people or evict people because of who they are dating, then I believe you are breaking the lesser at the expense of the greater.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 4:06 PM animalgirl writes:

Also

You've just decided for yourself that Adam and Eve are a model for all of us.

Considering what follows--the fact that the most beloved of God took many wives (Solomon took 500 wives and 500 concubines) and it was not condemned--the only thing condemned was that some of the wives were foreign.

Abraham knocked up his maid then kicked her out, but he was still a righteous man.

In fact, if you look at the teachings on sexual immorality in the Old Testament, it NEVER SAYS premarital sex is wrong. It condemns sex with a MARRIED WOMAN, or sex with a prostitute. But according to the teachings on sexual immorality in the Old Testament, a married man can have sex with an unmarried woman, or can take as many wives as he wants.

So, since the law doesn't pass away, do you believe that premarital sex is acceptable? Is doesn't condemn it in the Bible, just adultery and fornication (which involves prostitutes).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 5:36 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Actually, Animalgirl

20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

This is Jesus talking.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 5:51 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Further

The Biblican concept of sexual immorallity is broad. And while it does not specifically address many issues, such as premarital sex, it is safe to assume it is included in "fornification."

Homosexuality is indeed addressed by Paul. Check it out.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 8:07 PM animalgirl writes:

Actually

Fornication--at least the Latin term--very specifically addresses prostitution. The broad use of the word fornication is a very modern invention, furthered largely by the church in an attempt to expand what the Bible actually says so that it covers whatever current church leaders want it to.

The Latin 'fornix' means arch, because prostitutes would hang out under arches to serve their clients (how little the human race changes, eh?)

Over time, the word fornicatio developed, and it meant whoredom.

The word fornication did not appear in the English language until around 1300, and began to adopt it's newer, broader meaning then.

Yes, Jesus talks about sexual immorality. But I don't think that he is referring to the kind of loving, committed relationships many gay couples have today.

Interestingly, the 'Christians' focus on punishing the committed couples the most; they seek to create a world in which gay people have more incentive to be in the closet and seek illicit sex. Because of this, I think conservative Christians, by discouraging committed relationships, are encouraging immorality.

As far as Paul goes; as far as I know, Paul is not Jesus, and I don't think Christians should give him the same weight as they give Christ, because he was not God. And I do not think that Paul was infallible.

And his stuff is much more rooted in time period, and I think are less likely to be relevant today than Jesus' timeless words. A lot of what he was trying to do was set up a new religion that was contrasted to the existed Roman and Greek ones. He is trying to create a strong separation. He was alluding to the kind of orgiastic sex that was common in the pagan temples of the time.

But if you do want to follow all the Paul commandments, you're in trouble. He also said women shouldn't wear gold jewelry. So you may want to check your wife for immorality.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 9:23 PM BIRDMAN writes:

animalgirl


AG: "You say you believe in the Law."


I believe that I said, "The Law is still in effect..." as opposed to being abolished.

You even answered my question concerning the standard that God will use at the Judgment Day by confirming that He judge by the Law.

AG: "Jesus Christ never mentioned homosexuality. We should focus on following HIS law, not cherry-picking the Old Testament."

Jesus never condemned cannibalism either. Should we eat the flesh of fellow men since by your reaoning it is not a sin?

Jesus never condemned pedophilia either. Should we allow NAMBLA free rein since by your reaoning it is not a sin?

Jesus never condemned beastiality either. Should we open the doors to beastiality since by your reasoning, this is not a sin?

You keep ranting about love. Explain you think Jesus meant by 'love you neighbor'. How am I not loving my neighbor according to you?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 9:25 PM BIRDMAN writes:

animalgirl


AG: "You say you believe in the Law."


I believe that I said, "The Law is still in effect..." as opposed to being abolished.

You even answered my question concerning the standard that God will use at the Judgment Day by confirming that He judge by the Law.

AG: "Jesus Christ never mentioned homosexuality. We should focus on following HIS law, not cherry-picking the Old Testament."

Jesus never condemned cannibalism either. Should we eat the flesh of fellow men since by your reaoning it is not a sin?

Jesus never condemned pedophilia either. Should we allow NAMBLA free rein since by your reaoning it is not a sin?

Jesus never condemned beastiality either. Should we open the doors to beastiality since by your reasoning, this is not a sin?

You keep ranting about love. Explain you think Jesus meant by 'love you neighbor'. How am I not loving my neighbor according to you?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 11:04 PM animalgirl writes:

Breach

"You even answered my question concerning the standard that God will use at the Judgment Day by confirming that He judge by the Law."

Which I don't agree with. But you wouldn't get moving and state what you thought until I gave you the answer you wanted.

I think Jesus established a new covenant by which men will be judged. And I think that those who have worked to make gay people suffer may be unpleasantly surprised at how those actions are judged.

And you believe this as well. You do not think you have to follow Old Testament Laws, because you are justified apart form the law. Why cannot a homosexual be justified apart from the law if they believe in Christ?



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 11:05 PM animalgirl writes:

Breach

"Jesus never condemned cannibalism either. Should we eat the flesh of fellow men since by your reaoning it is not a sin?"

Well, he did condemn killing, which is normally the most heinous part of cannibalism. As for people throughout history who have been stranded somewhere and have eaten their already-dead compatriots to stay alive, I don't think they will be judged to harshly for that.

"Jesus never condemned pedophilia either. Should we allow NAMBLA free rein since by your reaoning it is not a sin?"

What is and is not pedophilia has a cultural context. In the time of our country's founding, it was not unusual for 13 or 14-year olds to be married to much older men, which is not considered correct by todays standards. Cultural contexts do change. There is a strong current of protecting children and childhood in the Gospels, but how that is implemented in society does change over time.

"Jesus never condemned beastiality either. Should we open the doors to beastiality since by your reasoning, this is not a sin?"

I think that Jesus' teachings on compassionate living would guide us not to abuse animals.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 11:05 PM animalgirl writes:

Breach

"How am I not loving my neighbor according to you?"

By trying to make them suffer in this life.

By alienating them from Christianity through the harsh judgment you have no authority to pass--you judge someone using a measure (Old Testament Law) which you have acknowledged you do not use on yourself because you think you are above it, which is EXACTLY what Christ was warning against ('with the measure you use, it will be measured to you').

By discouraging committed relationships, driving gay people into the sexual immorality of illicit sex in bathroom stalls, pressuring people to make marriage vows they will break; in short, shutting off the world of sexual morality to them and causing the problems you say you want to prevent.

So by driving gay people from Christ, by discouraging moral and good relationships, and by working to foster civil injustice against them, you are very decidedly NOT loving them.

As such, you are in far more serious breach of Christ's teaching than your typical homosexual.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 11:31 PM BIRDMAN writes:

AG


John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."


There are two Greek words for 'love' used in the bible. They are distinct: fileoo (NT:5368), the love of impulse, ardent affection and feeling; agapaoo (NT:25), the love of esteem, regard.

The word 'loved' in this is translated from the Greek word 'agapaoo'. Christ displayed 'agapoo' by dying on the Cross for our sins. It is a sacrificial love.

Your homosexual lovers, at best, exhibit 'fileoo'. There is a third type of love which is lust. I don't think it is used in the Bible, but I could be wrong. At worst, these homosexual lovers could exhibit lust.

Now, you are telling me that I must exhibit 'agapoo' or sacrificial love towards homosexuals.

Am I correct in this assumption? Or would you like to further explain yourself?





EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 11:42 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

I take in AG

You are not a literalist when it comes to the Bible, nor do you subscribe to its inerrancy or that God wrote it all,
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 11:57 PM BIRDMAN writes:

Virginia Daddy


I don't think she is coming back tonight.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 12:17 AM animalgirl writes:

Virginia Daddy

No, I am not a literalist. I believe in the Holy Spirit, and believe that we can personally commune with God, and do not need endless layers of mediation, which is what the Bible comes to us through.

Even if you were to believe in its inerrancy--which translation is inerrant?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 12:26 AM animalgirl writes:

Birdman

"you are telling me that I must exhibit 'agapoo' or sacrificial love towards homosexuals."

I don't have to. Jesus did.

I'm going to skip the 'love your neighbor' and go to the even stronger commandment:

"You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-48, NIV)

So yes, if you are to love those who persecute you, you are definitely to love homosexuals. Which you have before claimed you did.

So I don't know why you drive them away from Christ and into sexual immorality, instead of encouraging stable and loving relationships.

Also, I can tell you that I have known many long-term dedicated homosexual couples who exhibit agapaoo. One of my friends from childhood, who has been with her partner for close to a decade now, has actually been a great model for me in my own marriage, and helped me resolve some issues with my husband by handling similar issues with such grace and love.

I have the feeling you don't know many homosexuals, and would never deign to break bread with one (knowingly). You believe you are following Christ's example for behavior?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 8:07 AM animalgirl writes:

Birdman

"you are telling me that I must exhibit 'agapoo' or sacrificial love towards homosexuals."

I don't have to. Jesus did.

I'm going to skip the 'love your neighbor' and go to the even stronger commandment:

"You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-48, NIV)

So yes, if you are to love those who persecute you, you are definitely to love homosexuals. Which you have before claimed you did.

So I don't know why you drive them away from Christ and into sexual immorality, instead of encouraging stable and loving relationships.

Also, I can tell you that I have known many long-term dedicated homosexual couples who exhibit agapaoo. One of my friends from childhood, who has been with her partner for close to a decade now, has actually been a great model for me in my own marriage, and helped me resolve some issues with my husband by handling similar issues with such grace and love.

I have the feeling you don't know many homosexuals, and would never deign to break bread with one (knowingly). You believe you are following Christ's example for behavior?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 8:07 AM animalgirl writes:

Birdman

"you are telling me that I must exhibit 'agapoo' or sacrificial love towards homosexuals."

I don't have to. Jesus did.

I'm going to skip the 'love your neighbor' and go to the even stronger commandment:

"You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-48, NIV)

So yes, if you are to love those who persecute you, you are definitely to love homosexuals. Which you have before claimed you did.

So I don't know why you drive them away from Christ and into sexual immorality, instead of encouraging stable and loving relationships.

Also, I can tell you that I have known many long-term dedicated homosexual couples who exhibit agapaoo. One of my friends from childhood, who has been with her partner for close to a decade now, has actually been a great model for me in my own marriage, and helped me resolve some issues with my husband by handling similar issues with such grace and love.

I have the feeling you don't know many homosexuals, and would never deign to break bread with one (knowingly). You believe you are following Christ's example for behavior?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 11:35 AM Virginia Daddy writes:

AG

The originals are inerrant. I do not and will not say the translations are perfect. But they are closer to the originals than most think.

That said, this is why it is important to study multiple versions, and if you can, learn the original languages.

Its also interesting how you mention Christians seeking mediation. Most conventional denominations don't have any...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 12:30 PM animalgirl writes:

What do you call the originals?

It's not like we have John's manuscript (no one can even agree on who wrote John!) The 'originals' have gone through 2000 years of fallible human mediation.

And there are some significant translation problems (like the extension of the word 'fornication' to any kind of sex current church leaders want to discourage, when the Latin refers to visiting prostitutes). I also think that some passages from the King James version (which did NOT have a great deal of respect for the originals) became so beloved that the bad translations persisted in more modern translations (even though modern translation has improved greatly)--I am thinking specifically of 'In the Beginning was the Word' at the opening of John, which is simply an incorrect translation that is used in almost every version, for fear of changing it.

I do agree that a serious scholar should study the original languages.

"Its also interesting how you mention Christians seeking mediation. Most conventional denominations don't have any..."

But you absolutely do. If you say that are going to cleave closely to a 2000 translated text instead of learning to listen to God yourself and gauge your own conscience, you are using de facto mediation. If the Bible is your primary experience of God, then you are being mediated by generations of editors, librarians and translators.

If everything that you know personally of God tells you that gay people deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, but you ignore that instinct because of something in the old Testament, you are favoring a mediated experience of God over direct experience of God.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 1:38 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

We have a good idea of what they were

We have many, many copies, all of which are eerilly similar, over a long period of time, which suggests that they have been preserved well.

And translation problems exist in any thing translated. Hence the extension to other translations and reference back to the original languages.

Mediation. I don't buy your argument. What you say is that we should ignore what it is written, and listen solely to our gut. And this is rife with potentials for grave error.

But let me ask you this, and I ask sincerely: what do you think of deviant sexual practices and their place under God? Do you think God cares about such things?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 1:53 PM animalgirl writes:

God

Not our gut. God. Do you not believe in the ability of the Holy Spirit to communicate with us?

I believe interpreting heavily mediated text is just as prone to error, if not more so, than paying attention to the law that has been written on our hearts and our ability to communicate with the Holy Spirit.

As far as deviant--what is included, in your mind, under deviant?

- Oral sex?
- Sex during menstruation?
- Sex with a woman in the dominant position?
- Sex with the lights on?

It's kind of hard to discuss what God thinks of deviant practices when I do not know what you think of deviant.

Here are my thoughts on God and sexual morality:

- The bonds of marriage should be respected. This has as much to do with honesty and concern for others as it does with 'sexual morality.'

- We should not pour our energy into seeking things of this world. That rules out promiscuity--it's putting too much energy into sex. The Bible never condemns premarital sex, despite how the church has tried to torture the meaning of the word fornication. Still, promiscuity pulls us too much into the world, and risks harming others.

- Prostitution fosters a desperate class of women. Prostitution is a form of abuse.

However, sex within dedicated relationships is a-ok in God's eyes, by my estimation.

And I don't think he minds if a wife gives her husband a blowjob.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 2:18 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

It is an open ended definition, deviant

And I asked openly for a purpose. I notice you did not address homosexuality, which is indeed forbidden in the Bible, but Jesus did not call it that, but he said sexual immoarillity is wrong. What is sexually immoral? Keep in mind that if you believe God created us, and he created various parts for express purposes, how does that fit in to the debate?

And I wish I could find the paper, but I had a friend who once put together something saying essentially this: if you have sex with someone, you are married to that person. It was interesting.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 6:47 PM BIRDMAN writes:

AG


Do you mean that should 'agapaoo' homosexuals in the same manner that you 'agapaoo'?

I can only be around for another hour or so tonight.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 6:51 PM BIRDMAN writes:

AG - a re-post


Do you mean that I should 'agapaoo' homosexuals in the same manner that you 'agapaoo'?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 8:19 PM animalgirl writes:

Birdman

I don't know what you mean by 'in the same manner.' Do you have to help them move? Not necessarily, you may not know any homosexual couples who need help moving. But you should seek to help them when they are hurt (say, if they are sick and have lost their health care benefits because of the activism of the Georgia Christian Coalition), feed them when they are hungry, and treat them with kindness and dignity.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 8:30 PM animalgirl writes:

Not really

'he created various parts for express purposes, how does that fit in to the debate?'

Well, not really. Many parts of our bodies do double duty. I taste and eat with my tounge, but I also use it to talk; my lungs, which allow me to breath, also have the nice side effect of allowing me to talk and sing.

My breasts' primary purpose are to make milk for a baby--is is wrong for my husband to 'use' them in any way for sex? Both men and women's genitals have urinary and sexual functions.

And sex in itself has two distinct functions--to create new humans, and to promote human bonding. We know from looking a primates that the more sex a primate species has, the less violent they are in general.

But to answer your question as to what is sexual immoral, I believe I already addressed that. Breaking marriage vows, promiscuity, or sex that abuses or harms another.

Do you mind if I ask you what you think is sexually immoral? Is it limited to what is expressly written in the Bible? Does it encompass the Old Testament commandments forbidding a man from sleeping in a bed with a menstruating woman? Does it extend, as many believe, to sex with a woman on top (which is condemned in Genesis) or to oral sex (not really condemned anywhere in the Bible, but considered bad because the meaning of 'sodomy' has been tortured as much as 'fornication')
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 9:04 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

I'd be happy to answer

But first, but our genitals, while having two functions, were created for those two funnctions. Likewise, there are other organs used for but one purpose. You know where I am going, but the point is that any use outside of their designed purpose is unnatural.

And my feelings of deviant sexual behavior: homosexuality, pedophilia, sex outside of marriage (prostitution or anything else), multiple partners, anal, beastiality, and the like. I have no problem with experimenting with positions, oral, menstrual (though I do think that gross, but not immoral).

I, by the way, am one who puts limits on how much we can take literally of OT law. Christ fulfilled that law, and as such consider those laws to look forward to Christ. But Christ said this: if we think various things, we have sinned the same as if we act. Hating is equated to murder, as is lusting equated with adultery.

We should also do all we can to lift others up, as Paul suggests, and if we allow for any sin, we are failing in that regard.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 9:25 PM animalgirl writes:

Sermons

"any use outside of their designed purpose is unnatural"

Did God give you his plans labeling his intent for each part? How do you so well know what each part is made for? You say a mouth can be used as a sex organ, or a breast, and that is part of design, but not an anus. But why? I understand if you think it anal sex is gross and have no personal interest in it (and I would agree with you whole-heartedly). But that seems to be your main barometer--not what is 'natural' but what personally gives you the willies.

I disagree that it is our responsibility not to 'allow for any sin'. I think we are bound to guide other people, to some extent. But we were never told to be our neighbors taskmaster.

And taking that attitude is simply not productive. If you are constantly berating people for their behavior, instead of acting positively towards them, you just drive them further away from God.

BE what you think people should be. Good, moral lives, lived compassionately, draw far more people to God that sermonizing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 9:40 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Our neighbors taskmaster

Peter describes this in Acts through his dream regarding eating meat, and Christ demonstrates it in describing the good neighbor.

And the mouth and breast DO have sexual value. What do you think men mostly look at? How is that most men become aroused? We are visual. The anus was clearly not designed for that function.

Your last two paragraphs I generally agree with. I hope you've seen enough of me that I always try to treat EVERYONE with respect. I try, by my actions more than words, to show folks what is right. However, that does not excuse me from taking a stand against what is clearly wrong in God's eyes.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 10:17 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

AG

Here's something I wrote on religion a short while back.

I thought you may find it interesting...

http://justthinking.townhall.com/g/230f5060-d380-4751-9e30-3e28d3b8ef81
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 4:06 PM BIRDMAN writes:

aGirl


I will attempt to summarize what we talked about.

Birdman: Jesus was in the beginning. Jesus was with God. Jesus is God. Jesus came to live among us. This is in reference to John 1:1-4, & 14 using The Word which AGirl claims was meant to mean “reason”. But the issue is not whether Logos should have been translated ‘Word’ or ‘reason’ it is whether Jesus God or not?

AGirl: I don’t know.

My conclusion: If you were to recognize Jesus as God then you would have to consider ALL of His teachings; but some you accept and others you do not. By denying His Lordship you are able maintain the illusion of being a Christian without the inconvenience of total obedience. Your refusal to declare Him God is the same as denying him as God; you can dance around that issue all you like but the end result is the same. As you deny Jesus before men He will deny you before the Father. This is one of Jesus’ teachings which you reject.

There must be a reason that you would refuse to acknowledge His Deity.

AGirl: We don’t know for sure who authored the Gospel of John. It could have been written 2 generations after Jesus.

My conclusion: You attempt to remove the authority of the Gospel of John goes hand-in-hand with you attempt to obfuscate the accepted meaning of ‘Logos’. It lays the groundwork for your refusal to accept certain Scriptures as valid. But it also opens you the charge of adding and taking away from the Scriptures.

Rev 22:18-19 I [Jesus Christ] warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

There must be a reason that you refuse to acknowledge all Scripture; that you would intentionally take some away while at the same time add something that is not there.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 4:07 PM BIRDMAN writes:

aGirl


Birdman: Jesus teaches that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill the Law. On the Judgment Day all will be judged by the Law since there is no other standard that can be used. Only those whose names are found in the Book of Life will go to Heaven, all others will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

AGirl: I don’t follow the Old Testament. I think the words of Jesus are more important. The Law does not apply any more. He [Jesus] never denounced homosexuality so it is not a sin.

My conclusion: Your attempt to characterize my quoting from the whole body of Scripture as ‘cherry picking’ while attempting to limit the argument to the conditions you set only emphasizes the true ‘cherry picker’ of Scripture.

There must be a reason that you ‘cherry pick’ only select books and only select verses from the Scriptures.

Rev 22:18-19 I [Jesus Christ] warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

And finally, your example of agape love falls way short. You say I am to help move, feed if hungry, provide health care in need them. This is nothing more than an attempt to transfer your guilt to me. News Flash to animalgirl, I have taken the hungry off the street and fed them at my supper table; I did not ask if they were homosexual. I have taken the needy to my closet and clothed them; I did not ask if they were homosexual. I have gone to the prison and visited them; I did not ask if they were homosexual. Jesus says we are to do these things because we follow him not because you have an agenda.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 4:08 PM BIRDMAN writes:

aGirl


You even have a fetal human being (not a fetal pig, not a fetal dog, not a fetal elephant) growing inside you right now and you openly admit that when the inconvenience is too great you will abort that child. How does that compare with the teachings of Jesus Christ using the Good Samaritan as an example? You are a hypocrite and a liar.

The reason that you would refuse to acknowledge His Deity is that your deity is the homosexual agenda. You cannot follow 2 gods. Good luck to you following your god. You will have not part of heaven at the Judgment Day unless you forsake the path you are walking.

The reason that you refuse to acknowledge all Scripture is that to do so would expose your true agenda. Jesus says, Rev 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Your subtraction of true meaning of the Scriptures means that to you will be missing your share in the tree of life and in the holy city as described.

The reason that you ‘cherry pick’ only select books and only select verses from the Scriptures is because you know the truth and seek to hide it.

Your god is the homosexual agenda. Your god is the god of death. Your god is, in fact, the Father of Lies. You have no part in Heaven. Your self confessed title ‘Christian is a lie. You are a product of Satan’s lies.

You would impose your god on the world? At what price? I, for one, am not buying it, what ever the price. And if you continue to push your agenda in public I will forever speak of your lies, hypocrisy, and ‘cherry picking’ to the public. Christians are to stand for the truth at all cost. Christians are to contend for the faith constantly.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 4:19 PM BIRDMAN writes:

aGirl


I have one final comment. My advice to you is to repent, or turn away from the direction you are walking, and turn to Jesus. Accept His teachings completely, even those that point to God's condemnations. Take the whole word of God and argue from it. Believe that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was for your sins; that without your acceptance of the sacrifice and its conditions, you will not see Heaven. I do ot hate you. I seek what is best for you.

I tell the homosexuals the same thing. I do not hate them. I seek what is best for them.

Jesus said, Rev 22:10-13

10 Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near. 11 Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy."

12 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

The choice is yours. I cannot help you further.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 6:49 PM animalgirl writes:

You have invented

"but some you accept and others you do not. "

As do you. You have decided you don't have to follow Christ's commandment not to judge.

"There must be a reason that you would refuse to acknowledge His Deity."

There is. Because I recognize the limits of my own knowledge, as you clearly do not.

'obfuscate the accepted meaning of ‘Logos’. '

Actually, it was you who refused to acknowledge the meaning of the word. The meaning of the word is clear, not only in all etymological texts but by examining the English words that use it as it's root.

"add something that is not there"

It is you who have invented the commandment that people must abuse and stigmatize sinners. You spit on the teachings of Christ, from turning the other cheek to visiting those in prison, and invent a Gospel that requires you to treat people badly.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 7:00 PM animalgirl writes:

repent

"There must be a reason that you ‘cherry pick’ only select books and only select verses from the Scriptures."

Yes, and I gave you the reasons, supported by Scripture; because the law is fulfilled and a new covenant made. So I was not 'cherry-picking. You, on the other hand, absolutely cherry-pick, and you have never come up for a reasoned justification for your selection of verses, besides a weird interpretation that YOU don't have to follow Jewish law (at least the ones you don't want to) but everyone else needs to (except for the ones that you have decided aren't a big deal).

"My advice to you is to repent,"

And I have the same to you. Quit focusing so much energy on pulling mote out of your neighbors eye. Quit arrogantly assuming the responsibilities of God. Serve your fellow man. Live your life as Christ commanded, and abandon your sinful path of divisiveness, discord, and heartlessness. Quit driving gay people in promiscuity by punishing those who are faithful at a far heavier rate than those who truly are sexual immoral.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 9:09 PM BIRDMAN writes:

aGirl

You keep saying that I judge you and them. I do not judge you or them for condemnation. By your sins you will be judged by God. Judging you for condemnation is not given to me. I recognize your fruit.

Matt 7:15-20
15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

How can I determine who the wolves are if I do not look at their fruit? Jesus says by their fruit I will recognize them. You call evil good and good evil. You are not bearing good fruit. You are leading them and encouraging them to sin.

It is not my words that make them sin. They do that voluntarily of their own free will. But, by my words they can find righteousness. My words are from God. But you deny God’s words so you teach them sin is OK. Who is the deceiver?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 9:10 PM BIRDMAN writes:

aGirl


You call homosexuals ‘children of God’. They very well might have been…

Matt 18:3-6 And he [Jesus] said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

If they are/were children of God, it is you who is causing, approving, and encouraging their sin. It is you who should wear the millstone and be thrown into the deepest sea. It is not my words that judge you; it is your own fruits.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 9:18 PM BIRDMAN writes:

aGirl


You made a claim that I invented marriage with Adam and Eve.

All I do is follow Jesus. When asked about divorce He said:

Matt 19:4-9 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

This discussion took place in the context of a man divorcing his female half also known as a wife. Jesus teaches that a man is to become united with a woman into one family. I added nothing. It is you that adds that man can be united with man. It is you that perverts the Scriptures.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 09, 2007 10:53 PM animalgirl writes:

Picture of humility

" You are leading them and encouraging them to sin."

No, you are, by discouraging committed, faithful relationships and driving homosexuals into illicit bathroom sex.

"You are not bearing good fruit."

And look at what fruit conservative Christianity is bearing!! War, duplicity, abuse of the poor, racism, corruption. Sorry, but I haven't seen much good fruit coming out of conservative Christianity. Shoot, Ralph Reed, the creator of the Christian Coalition, is the nastiest little weasel in politics.

"You made a claim that I invented marriage with Adam and Eve."

Nowhere in your passage does it say that men cannot have multiple wives, as most of God's most beloved did throughout the OT. Polygamy is only condemned once (mildly) by Paul, in weaker terms than he condemns women wearing gold jewelry.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 7:00 AM BIRDMAN writes:

aGirl


Matt 19:4-9 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

For the reading challenged the words of Jesus are “the Creator 'made them male and female”. Notice that the verse does NOT say ‘males’ and ‘females’ (plural) but ‘male and female’ (singular) or one male and one female.

“…a man will leave his father and mother…” Notice that in this phrase the word is ‘man’ (singular) not ‘men’ (plural).

“…a man will … be united to his wife”. Notice in the conclusion of this phrase the word ‘woman’ (singular) is not ‘women’ (plural).

“…the two will become one flesh”. Notice the ‘two’ refers to the singular man and the singular woman joining together to become ‘one’ (singular).

There is only one way that someone can possibly claim that this verse advocates multiple wives, multiple husbands, woman-woman relationships, or even man-man relationships. That one way is by presenting a deliberate lie. You, aGirl, are a liar and you are the product of the Father of Lies. You have not written an honest word throughout this exchange. You are losing this argument.

You are blinded by your fervent desire that homosexuality must be OK in the eyes of God. It is not. Their sin will lead to their destruction. And your pushing for them to sin will lead to yours.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 7:04 AM BIRDMAN writes:

aGirl


Whether on not my sin leads to my destruction will not in anyway negate the truth that you and they will be destroyed for your collective sins.

Your attempts to deflect that truth are simply another means of changing the topic since you are losing this one.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 11:35 AM animalgirl writes:

Why

Why does God never condemn the multiple wives in the Old Testament?

Why is Abraham sanctified, even though he knocked up his maid?

You can pretend all you want that your verse condemns plural marriage. But the fact is, it was a question about divorce, and Jesus immediately turned for an answer to the OT law, which explicitly permits polygamy.

Exodus 21:10-11
If a man marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Deuteronomy 21:15-16
If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.

Also, in Matthew 25, Jesus tells a parable about a man marrying ten virgins, with no condemnation of this!

Why would he tell a parable about plural marriage and not condemn the plural marriage?

Sorry, buddy, the Bible doesn't condemn polygamy.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 11:50 AM Virginia Daddy writes:

AG

So now YOU are discounting what Christ said, if I understand you correctly...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 11:54 AM animalgirl writes:

Also, Birdman

Do you deny the Holy Spirit? Do you deny the ability of man to communicate directly with God? Do you only believe in following ancient texts? Do you deny that God writes his law on our heart, and that it changes over time (as it can, since it was fulfilled), he instructs us?

And still, you have never come up with a justification for which laws you ignore and which ones you do not (I, on the other hand, have). You simply said that you are not bound by Jewish law. But since you claim to venerate the Old Testament, you have not separated out what you've decided is 'Jewish Law' (which you have freed yourself from following) and non-Jewish law.

I am assuming you do not think it is appropriate for a parent to kill their child for disobeying, or for a father to sell his daughter into servitude. Why not? Is this part of the 'Jewish Law' that you ignore, but that non-Christians should follow? Why are not the sexual laws part of the 'Jewish law'?

Your theology is a total mess, Birdman, and you have such an non-logical mind that you can't even recognize it. You just keep repeating to yourself that the Word of God is all absolute, so you think it doesn't matter if you ignore whatever you feel like ignoring.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 7:00 PM BIRDMAN writes:

animalgirl


AG:
“Why does God never condemn the multiple wives in the Old Testament?

Why is Abraham sanctified, even though he knocked up his maid?

You can pretend all you want that your verse condemns plural marriage. But the fact is, it was a question about divorce, and Jesus immediately turned for an answer to the OT law, which explicitly permits polygamy.”


What?????

Let me see, now. You are the one that looks to the words of Jesus since they carry more weight than the Disciples or even the OT. So, I quote exactly what Scriptures shows Jesus said on the matter of marriage and divorce when questioned by His critics. It was not in a story form. It was a statement by Jesus. You find fault, now, with Jesus’ instruction???? You who take His word????

Summary of your theology:

Jesus is not God… at least you won’t claim Him so it means the same thing. Why do you claim the name of a non-god?

You take Jesus’ words over the Disciples and the OT … sometimes. If He is a non-god what makes His words more important than other men or even God the Father and Creator?

You exclude entire Books from cannon… otherwise you only exclude selective passages. I have already commented on your loss concerning the Tree of Life and the Holy City.

You believe that homosexuality is not a sin because … Jesus does not condemn it. Jesus never condemned pedophilia either. This must not be a sin.

Not only do you support homosexual activity, you actually encourage and promote it. You would be an example of the blind leading the blind. Don’t they both fall into the ditch?

You find fault with Christians? What hypocrisy!!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 9:27 PM animalgirl writes:

Holy Spirit

"So, I quote exactly what Scriptures shows Jesus said on the matter of marriage and divorce when questioned by His critics."

Yes, you did. And what Christ says say NOTHING about plural marriage being disallowed. You just turned a few rhetorical flips to convince yourself that it does. But do you know what? It's clear as day that it does not.

And you have no answer to Christ's parable about ten virgins marrying a single man.

Let's summarize your theology, now:
Non-Christians must follow all Old Testament Laws, and it's important to teach them. Well, except for the ones that you don't think are a big deal, like all the dietary restrictions. Christians don't have to follow what you call "Jewish law" but you don't really define what that means; one would think you would mean the laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, but you HAVE acknowledged that you think some of those laws must be followed by everyone, even followers of Jesus (like the rules against sex during menstruation).

So basically, you just pick and discard laws willy-nilly, ignoring whatever you don't like and paying very close attention to anything that requires a lot from OTHER people, but not from you.

And you have changed these closely held beliefs a few times during our conversation, as you realized that your theology really doesn't hang together.

It's the problem with arrogance. You can get so far up your own butt that you know longer see that what you believe makes no sense.

I sincerely hope that you meditate, pray, connect with the Holy Spirit and are guided to a more Godly life.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 11, 2007 9:32 PM BIRDMAN writes:

aGirl


I must apologize. I thought you were pulling my leg when you referenced the parable of the ‘ten virgins’. Please forgive me.

His own disciples questioned Him about His use of parables.

Matt 13:10-15
“10 The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

"'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'”


Though you can see, aGirl, you do not see into the parable of the ten virgins.

Though you can read, aGirl, you do not understand the lesson of the ten virgins.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 11, 2007 9:34 PM BIRDMAN writes:

aGirl


I will attempt to explain the parable of the ten virgins to you to the best of my knowledge.

Jesus was a Jew. He taught Jews. His teaching style involved parables to which all could relate. All of His teachings were taken from the culture at that time.

In this case it was custom for a man (or his representative) to approach the father of the woman he desired to marry. He and the father would negotiate a bride price which would become the woman’s dowry. After the man gathered the bride price he would go back to make payment. At this point the man and woman were legally considered married or betrothed. However, they did not live together. The man went back to his father’s house and built an addition onto his father’s house. When his father determined the time was right, he would tell his son to go and take his bride. The man would go back to his intended’s father’s house and claim his wife and take her home. They would live in house of the man’s father until they had become financially stable enough to live on their own.

While the man was building the addition on his father’s house, the woman would burn a light in the window of here father’s house to proclaim to the people that she was spoken for and to serve as beacon for her betrothed to find his way back to her.

Recall that Jesus said, “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” (John 14:1-3). Do you see a similarity between what Jesus said and the understanding of the people in connect to a bride and groom?

Now read the parable of the ten virgins again.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 11, 2007 9:37 PM BIRDMAN writes:

aGirl


Matt 25:1-13
25:1 "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4 The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5 The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.

6 "At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!'

7 "Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.'

9 "'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.'

10 "But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.

11 "Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!'

12 "But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.'

13 "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 11, 2007 9:40 PM BIRDMAN writes:

aGirl


As I understand it, the ten virgins originally represented all Jews (take notice of the 10 virgins vs. the 10 tribes). The implication is that some of the people will be ready and some will not be ready when the Jewish Messiah returns to claim His bride (the Jewish believers). After Peter received the vision that the Gospel was for all people, including the Gentiles, the 10 virgins came to be understood to include all peoples, not just Jewish people. The lesson still applies in that we who believe must always be ready for the return of the bridegroom.

If we are not ready, we will miss the rapture (His taking us home). If we miss the rapture, we will not be included in the wedding supper. That is, when we say “Lord, Lord’, He will say, “I don’t know you” (see Matt 7:21-23**); and we will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

This parable really has nothing to do with multiple wives. Your misunderstanding concerning this parable says a lot about your supposed relationship with Jesus Christ.




** Matt 7:21-23
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 12, 2007 12:05 PM animalgirl writes:

Totally missed my point

I know there is a deeper meaning to the parable.

What I am saying is: why would Jesus tell a parable that involved someone committing a sin (marrying multiple women) and never mention that it was wrong to marry multiple women.

Can you think of any other parables where he mentioned people committing serious sins and failed to say anything about those sins?

Get it now? I know this is tough for you, thinking outside your tiny box and recognizing the truth that is sitting in front of you. Jesus tells a story about a man marrying five women, with not a word of condemnation for it.

Just pretend it's not true, Birdman, you're good at that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 12, 2007 6:30 PM BIRDMAN writes:

animalgirl you have no point!


“… why would Jesus tell a parable that involved someone committing a sin and never mention that it was wrong to marry multiple women.”


Jesus already said why:
Matt 13:13 “This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”

You reject Jesus’ teaching and seek to force His lesson to be about polygamy. It is not. The verse says, “… the kingdom of heaven will be like…” That word ‘like’ says that this is a simile. Immediately the believer’s brain switches to spiritual-lesson time concerning heaven. Your brain remains stuck in humanism.

I never liked your name ‘animalgirl’ as I felt it was unbecoming even hinting at evil. I have tried to use ‘aGirl’ as I feel it seems more innocent and gives you the benefit of the doubt. You claim to be a Christian. But I disagree. No, you are not a Christian; you are a fraud, a fake. You are sailing under false colors. Just as a buccaneer on the high seas would sail under false colors to get close enough to slip a blade in the victim’s ribs, so you claim ‘Christian’ to hide your real intent to dupe the unsuspecting. You truly are an ‘animal’. Your name, as filthy as it implies, is apt for you.

Your intent is to discredit the Bible, the Gospels, the authors, God, and even Jesus. There are those who are blind and do not see but you are willfully blind and will not see. You must twist the Scriptures to fit your agenda. There are those who are physically deaf and cannot hear but you intentionally refuse to hear and understand. Your agenda must prevail even if at the cost of the Scriptures. Furthermore, you teach those who will listen to you that their sins are not sins and that they will not die for those sins. You sound just like the Serpent in the Garden of Eden suggesting to Eve that “Surely you will not die”.

The question is not why would Jesus tell this parable in this manner but rather why would you seek to undermine Jesus?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 8:27 AM animalgirl writes:

density

Read again, and think slowly.

I never said the lesson was about polygamy.

Read my previous post. Slowly. See if any comprehension dawns.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 9:36 AM animalgirl writes:

Irony

I am not exactly sure what you think is so 'evil' about 'animalgirl.' The funny thing is that our screen names are actually very similar--I am not sure why 'animalgirl' is evil but 'birdman' is not. You may not realize this, but birds are a kind of animal.

Sadly, I doubt you even recognized the similarity in our names.

Jesus wants you to use your brain, Bman.

I am not undermining Jesus. The fact is, Jesus is silent on polygamy, and the Old Testament wholeheartedly endorses it. You don't like this very clear fact, so you seek to stretch and distort some verses so they fit what you want to believe.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 10:22 PM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl


As soon as I transmitted last night, I regretted that post. Like the spoken word, the transmitted word cannot be recalled. I apologize.

I used to raise birds as pets. If anyone needed his bird’s wing feathers clipped, he came to me. If there were questions about feed and care friends came to me. I loved my birds. I was known around the neighborhood as ‘The Birdman’, hence my name.

I don’t know why you chose the name ‘animalgirl’ for a handle, maybe I don’t want to know. You might be a veterinarian for all I know. I do know that your descriptions of your private moments with your husband bothered me and I thought at the time, “She is an animal.” Your admission that the possibility of blindness would be sufficient for you abort that child growing in your womb made me think again, “She is an animal.” Perhaps you were only seeking shock value.

As a Christian, I believe that we were created by God in His image. We were not created as animals, but as men. I can not imagine Him acting or speaking like you do. Like you, I am very outspoken, but some things I bite my tongue to quiet myself in public. For me - what is private stays private. For you – that might not be true (perhaps you are an animalgirl).

I leave it up to you to decide if our names that similar?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 10:25 PM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl


AG: “I am not undermining Jesus. The fact is, Jesus is silent on polygamy, and the Old Testament wholeheartedly endorses it. You don't like this very clear fact, so you seek to stretch and distort some verses so they fit what you want to believe.”


When we go to the Beginning in Genesis, we see that God created Adam (one man) and Eve (one woman).

Gen 2:20-22 But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

To the best of my knowledge, God never told any man to have more than one wife. If you have information to the contrary, feel free to share it.

Jesus repeated the story of first man and first woman and referred to each in the singular (ie. 1 man and 1 wife). See my post above for the verses.

Man, on the other hand, was not shy about taking things upon him self without God’s direction. I guess men felt it was easier to ask forgiveness than permission. What we don’t see in the Genesis account is the creation of Adam and Eve and Eva (or even Adam and Steve or Anna and Eve).

Continued...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 10:26 PM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl

continued...

We see a desire for men to have their way in 1 Sam 8:4, 6-7 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah.
…
6 they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.

God wants to be our king now just as He did then. The result of the demands of the people led to Saul being their first king. What makes you think that these kings did not do things their way regarding multiple wives?

The fact is, yes, you are attempting to undermine Scripture, God, and Jesus. And you are doing it to score points for your political agenda. Jesus commanded us to do the will of our Father in Heaven. He did not tell us to do the will of men on earth.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 10:30 PM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl


Regarding those pesky dietary standards, God instructed Adam what to eat.

Gen 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

Does that mean that we sin if we do not eat fruit only? Adam was not Jewish. Was he obligated to follow Jewish Laws?



After the expulsion from the Garden mankind planted crops and tended herds. Do we sin if we do not eat the vegetables from our own gardens? Do we sin if we do not eat the meat and drink the milk from our own herds? Cain and Abel were not Jewish. Were they sinning by not following the Jewish dietary laws?



Noah was told after the flood in

Gen 9:1-3 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Did Noah and his sons sin by not eating according to the Jewish dietary laws? Noah and his sons were not Jewish.

The descendents of Japheth moved north and west into what we now know as Europe and Western Russia. He never received the Jewish laws.

The descendents of Ham moved south into what we now call Africa. He never received the Jewish laws.

Some of the descendents of Shem move to the east into what is now Iran, Afghanistan, India, and China. They never received the Jewish laws.

And some of the descendents of Shem stayed in the mid-East to become the Arabs of today and the Jews. Only the Jew received the Jewish laws.

Continued...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 10:32 PM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl

Concluded.

Peter had a dream.

Acts 10:9-15
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Who should I obey?



Jesus taught in Matt 15:10-11 "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'"



I think that defines my thoughts on dietary restrictions.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 10:49 PM animalgirl writes:

More similar than you know

I picked the name because I rescue animals, and people bring their animals to me for care. And I have an especial soft spot for birds, especially African greys.

So yes, I would say our names are quite similar.

But on all your other stuff--you said over and over again that every jot and tittle was still in the law. Now you disagree with yourself on that point. You also seem to say that non Jews can ignore Jewish law. Which includes the laws on homosexuality, I am assuming.

"Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Remember that when you are abusing the homosexuals God has made.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 11:01 PM animalgirl writes:

Also

In Samuel, God tells David that he gave him his seven wives:

Samuel 12
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 7:00 PM Savage99 writes:

animalgirl

I have been 86ed as much as you and BrianR put together, and i still haven't figured it out. I have never wasted typing time on epithets, avoid religion which i find boring in others, sincerely believe that the huge majority here and everywhere are basically good decent people. Well-intentioned people can advocate different solutions for the same problem, and i give people their space. What do i do wrong. I would like to think my unassailable and devastating logic is so frustrating to those disageeing they have no recourse but to flag me in droves. But i think it may be when i say things like violence solved the problem of which culture would survive, Rome or Carthage. This sort of thing would not be your problem. Perhaps its just flags from frustrated opponents. If this is true in your case, its truly unfair. You are the most thoughtful and logical leftie appearing regularly.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 7:29 PM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl


You and I will constantly ever be in conflict with what Jesus said.

Matt 5:17-18
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

These are not my words, nor are they yours. These words are transcendental to us. No man could have said these words, only God. You seek to abolish the law because you feel that homosexuality has been made pure.

I grant this, if the homosexual person comes to Jesus Christ, he will be made pure. But IMO the homosexual act still remains, in the words of God, “an abomination”, or IM-pure. That has never changed from Sodom and Gomorrah (pre Law) until today. Anyone once pure who then goes back to any sin (even homosexual practices) again has a blot on his soul. It is possible for some one who has been made pure by Jesus Christ to still turn away and become apostate by engaging in sin. When that happens, they are again lost.

If what you say is true, then:

1) Jesus’ words, “Sin no more” are merely a suggestion.

2) all Christians (not just homosexuals) have license to sin because we are all saved and therefore have no need to temper our behavior.

3) the parable of the 10 virgins has no meaning other than some man marrying 10 (or 5) women.

4) the Law has been abolished contrary to Jesus’ words.

I could go on. Any one of the above diminishes the Bible and weakens faith. Is that your goal?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 7:33 PM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl - polygamy


Michal become David’s wife.
1 Sam 18:26-27
26 When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king's son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed, 27 David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

Abigail (widow of deceased Nabal) and Ahinoam become David’s wives.
1 Sam 25:42-43
42 Abigail quickly got on a donkey and, attended by her five maids, went with David's messengers and became his wife. 43 David had also married Ahinoam of Jezreel, and they both were his wives.

There were other wives of David.
2 Sam 3:3-5
Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur;
Haggith;
Abital;
Eglah.

It is not mentioned whether the last 4 wives were from Saul’s estate. According to 1 Sam 14:50, Saul had but one wife, and according to 2 Sam 3:7 only one concubine, whom Abner appropriated to himself. David had married at least 3 prior wives without mention of God’s approval. It seems to me that the horses were out of the barn before the door could be closed.

You give a weak argument that God is for polygamy, I for one cannot say God is pro polygamy. David gives a far stronger argument that he is one that takes these things upon him self since he seduced Bathsheba, had her husband killed in battle, and took her as his wife just as an example. Your quote from Nathan comes after that Bathsheba incident.

According to custom of the time, the royal harem was a part of the royal inheritance or spoils of battle. But I will concede that David had at least 7 wives and God did not take him to task for it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 8:35 PM animalgirl writes:

You were the one

Who said that the law was abolished. You said you did not have to follow 'Jewish law.' Which, according to the Birdman Select algorithm, includes the sexual laws but does not include the dietary laws. Jewish dietary law=abolished. Jeiwsh sexual laws=not abolished.

I get it. I just don't see the justification. You think not a jot or tittle has passed away, yet you ignore several jots and tittles, because you labelled it 'Jewish.'

Also: I explicitly said I KNEW there was an greater meaning to the parable of the five virgins. You are building a straw man because you can't answer my question--

Do you know of any other place where Jesus tells parables involving people committing great sins, and does not condemn the sin?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 9:57 PM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl


Then we are in agreement... The Law is still in effect?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 10:06 PM animalgirl writes:

No, we're not

Neither of us believes that.

I think the law was fulfilled, and you think that Jewish law doesn't apply to you.

So neither of us think the law is still in effect, apparently.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 10:13 PM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl


The Law will be used on the Day of Judgment. Those who are not found in the Book of Life will be tossed into the Lake of Fire.

The Law is still in effect.

That is why Jesus says, "Go and sin no more”.

If we continue to sin we will be judged for that sin.

You refuse to believe that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 10:27 PM animalgirl writes:

Picking and choosing

But it's not still in effect, according to you. You don't follow a large number of laws. You discard not only the dietary restrictions (saying that, because of Jesus, a few jots and tittles apparently DID pass from the law, which contradicts what you have stated before), but also restrictions on dress.

You wear blended fabrics. I doubt you follow the commandments on ceremonial washing. I doubt you sacrifice a lamb on Passover. You are not advocating for our nation, as a God-fearing nation, to recognize Jubilee.

The Bible declared the Old Covenant obsolete, which is widely accepted among Christians. You have decided it is not. However, you are very selective in the laws you pay attention to.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 10:33 PM animalgirl writes:

It was foretold

Before the Messiah even came, that the Messiah would make a New Covenant:

Hebrews 8
8But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 10:59 PM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl


Some verses that teach we (the righteous and the unrighteous alike) will die spiritually if we sin.

Gen 3:4
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.

Of course Adam and Eve did not keel over dead. But they were dead spiritually. They were separated from God.

Ezek 33:18-19
18 If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, he will die for it. 19 And if a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he will live by doing so.

Rom 6:16
16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey-whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Rom 8:13-14
13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

James 1:14-15
14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

James 5:19-20
19 My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, 20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

From Jesus' parable about the sower - an example of apostasy.
Luke 8:13
13 Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

From Jesus' parable about the prodigal son
Luke 15:24
24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again.

By what standard are these sins judged? By what standard are sinners separated from God?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 11:50 PM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl - Hebrews


Since you quote from Hebrews Here are some verses you should look at.

Heb 3:12-19
12 See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. 14 We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first. 15 As has just been said:

"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion."

16 Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17 And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? 18 And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? 19 So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

Heb 4:1
4:1 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.

Continued...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 11:54 PM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl - Hebrews cont.


Heb 10:26-31
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Heb 10:35-39
35 So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. 36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. 37 For in just a very little while,

"He who is coming will come and will not delay.
38 But my righteous one will live by faith.
And if he shrinks back,
I will not be pleased with him."

39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.

Heb 13:4-5
4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. 5 Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said,

"Never will I leave you;
never will I forsake you."

I just threw that marriage verse in there in light of the current movement to re-definition marriage.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 15, 2007 9:16 AM animalgirl writes:

Birdman

'By what standard are these sins judged?'

The standards Jesus set forth. You know, all that stuff about turning the other cheek and showing compassion?

Funny that you included a verse about forsaking the love of money!! If only conservatives would focus on commandments like that and quit trying to be 'moral' by making gay people and their family suffer!

They try to make loving gay couples suffer, while throwing their temples open to money-changers and elevating love of money over love of their fellow human being.

The right is lost in sin, and they distract themselves with the faux righteousness of attacking gay people.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 15, 2007 11:23 AM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl


There are 2 kinds of people in the world - believers that Jesus is the Christ, and everyone else.

Of the 2nd group, everyone, without exception, is destined to the Lake of Fire. It says so in my Bible and it says so in yours whether you read it or not. There is no other destination for these people unless they hear the truth and repent. That is what the 'Great Commission' is all about. That is you and I spreading the word (oops, the 'reason').

I have read the posts of the homosexuals on TH and all practicing homosexuals deny God and Jesus and salvation. They are not the only group to do this just the most vocal about their denial and the most insistent that their choice must be accepted and approved across the board by others. You can deny these facts all you want. Your denial does not change the truth of Scriptures that they are bound for the Lake of Fire. Presenting this truth is not attacking Homosexually Oriented People, it is educating them.

For these people to hear the truth about salvation they must be taught what God considers righteousness or right living. Without the Law they will not know about sin and its consequences.

Once the concept of sin is presented as fact and understood, then the second concept of mercy can be taught. Under the Law, there is no mercy. You sin, you die. Mercy and Salvation have no meaning in the absence of the Law. Mercy comes from God thru Jesus His Son. To obtain mercy all must come to Jesus or die.

Every evangelist through the ages since Jesus has taught about sin and damnation followed by mercy and salvation. These must go hand in hand. With the first people have no need of the second.

When you refuse to teach them, you are not fulfilling the ‘Great Commission’. When you select specific verses to support your narrow view you are diluting the Scriptures. When you ignore Jesus’ teach, “Go and sin no more” you are presenting a false image of Jesus.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 15, 2007 11:27 AM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl


There are 2 kinds of believers in Jesus - those who walk with faith in Jesus, and those who fall away.

Of the 2nd group, everyone, without exception, is destined to the Lake of Fire. Again, it says so in my Bible. I have presented verses that state that truth.

The only remedy for them is to repent of (turn away from) their sin and turn once again to Jesus. He teaches us to forgive our fellow man for a sin 70 x 7 times. How much more will God forgive us if we repent of our sin?

If it takes the re-teaching of the Law about sin and its consequences for the wayward wanders to return to Jesus, then that is easy enough to do. But the Law must be taught for that lesson to be learned. Without the Law, there is no reason to repent. Without repentance there is no mercy and salvation. Without salvation there is no future in heaven.

The Law is in effect. It has never been abolished. It will be used on that Last Day of the Lord as the standard for punishment for the unbeliever and the apostate.

If you are a true believer in Christ, you should have no problem this teaching. If you are a true believer, you should be teaching with me that sin leads to death and repentance leads to life.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 15, 2007 5:01 PM animalgirl writes:

Doves

"all practicing homosexuals deny God and Jesus and salvation"

You are simply incorrect. The associate pastor of my church most definitely does NOT deny Christ.

"The Law is in effect. It has never been abolished. "

Then you are in trouble for ignoring most of it. I recommend you not go another Passover without sacrificing a lamb!!

You have hardened your heart, and cannot discern the law written on it. So you are left picking and choosing verses out of an ancient text (the ones you like, not any laws you don't), unable to see the truth as God reveals it to you. You have shut out the Holy Spirit. I hope you find the Light.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 15, 2007 7:20 PM BIRDMAN writes:

agirl


Deny Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

How could He say that if there are some who will not see the kingdom of heaven? When did God reverse He statement, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."?

Deny Jesus said, "Go, and sin no more."

How could He say that if His intent was for sinning to continue?

Deny Jesus said, "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

How could He have said that if He meant that we were become like the world?

If your associate pastor is a practicing homosexual then your entire church body is in apostasy. How does he fulfill the requirement that an elder should be the husband of 1 wife?

What did Jesus mean when He said to the chruch at Ephesus, "Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

I have backed you into a corner from which you cannot escape. You cannot truly admit to what the Scriptures state; yet you cannot turn your back on your congregational family. I will not post here again. I regret your decision to be of the world.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive