Homosexuality and the Bible

Aug 15, 2011 | Posted by: Selecia Jones- JAX FL | Full story: www.smh.com.au

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Comments (Page 905)

Showing posts 18,081 - 18,100 of24,702
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20202
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
You have yet to prove that Jesus deliberately and purposefully referred to gay men as eunuchs.
Jesus said nothing intentionally and specifically about gay men.
As I posted, even other gays disagree with your denial.

Smile

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20203
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
As I posted, even other gays disagree with your denial.
Smile
LOL!!!....

Your smile is gleaming with an oversimplified, ignorant insincerety.

...

The Bible does not give ANY definition to its quote of Jesus' remarks about "eunuchs" - a Greek word, by the way.

Jesus spoke in Aramaic.

IS IT fair to say that there were marked differences between the historical cultures in terms of Greek sexuality versus Hebrew cultural sexuality? Yes, it is a known fact that there were significant, considerable differences.

Language reflects conceptual and cultural differences. So, we do not know today exactly what Jesus meant back then, simply by reading either the Greek texts of scripture or by attempting to interpret Jesus' reported words, as translated into Greek, by placing them in a conceptual context of Hebrew scripture in terms of Old Testament.

All the Bible really gives us is Jesus' own statement that "some will not be able to understand this Teaching." But, we CAN legitimately infer that Jesus knew that humans include individuals who are not simply physically, mentally or spiritually heterosexual, either male or female. Given the fact that his own disciples were reported to have been disconcerted over Jesus' teachings regarding the ideas of adultery, marriage and divorce and Jewish (Mosaic) Law,...

What makes you think they immediately or fully understood His remarks about "eunuchs?"

I'll lay even odds that they didn't understand or at least some of them didn't understand. But, we don't have the benefit of reportings of further conversations and teachings and dissertations on the subject by Jesus, do we?

No. We do not.

...

Your supposedly Bible-based assertions are groundless, Kimare.

If anything, they are way off the mark.

...

Furthermore, IF Jesus was/is truly inspired with the Holy Spirit of Truth and Life (His own description), then His conceptual understandings, even if delivered in a peculiar cultural context, would actually be understood to be congruent with the most modern psychological understandings of Human sexuality.

That is because the closer we get to the Truth today, the closer we get to the actual Jesus, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Our constantly adaptive and most modern understandings, scientific, psychological, genetic, medical, et cetera, are an essential part of this "getting closer" to the Truth.

The Bible is intended to be a guide - TO - the Truth. But, it was never intended to - BE - the Truth. It has always been and continues to be, in the best sense, only a reflection of the Truth within ourselves; a Truth buried in the history and tapestry of human effort, full of folly and selfish error, given through the Hebrew tribal perspective.

If our most modern understandings are found to be adapting into a position of contradistinctive tension with traditional "Biblical" views, then we can rejoice in that we are actually moving toward the Truth and away from a scripture-based "Biblical, cultural, Traditional, Orthodox" set of self-promulgating misunderstandings.

We are, after all, each and every one of us, both a form of perfection and imperfection, infinite in Spirit melded with finiteness in our objective presence.

Rev. Ken
A priest and disciple of the Lord, Christ Jesus.
SHADOW

Boerne, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20204
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Little Blue Alien wrote:
<quoted text>
He's no reverend, he's a rabbi performing metzitzah b'peh's for God's sake.
This thread is full of fakes, sel's no Christian either:
Selecia Jones- JAX FL
“Plays well with others.”
Since: Jun 07
27,881
LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse
|Judge it!
|#284748
Friday Sep 20 The only thing wrong with the people in Chicago is their AIM!"
This classic is what sel posted in regard to people wounded and killed in Chicago including a 3 yr old child shot in the face.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20205
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
This thread is full of fakes, sel's no Christian either:
Selecia Jones- JAX FL
“Plays well with others.”
Since: Jun 07
27,881
LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse
|Judge it!
|#284748
Friday Sep 20 The only thing wrong with the people in Chicago is their AIM!"
This classic is what sel posted in regard to people wounded and killed in Chicago including a 3 yr old child shot in the face.
Hi phony.

Matthew 7:1 says you are not a Christian either.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20206
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Exodus
Isaiah 54:7 ("For a small moment have I [God] have forsaken thee....")

versus

Deut. 4:31 ("For the Lord thy God is a merciful God; he will not forsake thee....") and 1 Sam. 12:22 ("For the Lord will not forsake his people....")

Smile

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20207
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
http
Jeremiah 3:12 ("...for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever") and Micah 7:18 ("...he retaineth not anger forever")

versus

Jeremiah 17:4 ("...for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever")

Only a moron would accept the Bible to tell them about homosexuality.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20208
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jeremiah 4:2 ("And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness")

versus

Matt. 5:34 ("But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven....")

Smile.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20209
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jeremiah 4:14 ("O Jerusalem, wash your heart from wickedness, that you may be saved")

versus

Jeremiah 2:22 ("Though you wash yourself with lye and use much soap, the stain of your guilt is still before me")

Smile.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20210
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jeremiah 13:14 ("And I will dash them one against another, even the father and the son together, said the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them")

versus

James 5:11 ("...the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy") and 1 Chron. 16:34 ("...the Lord; for he is good; for his mercy endureth forever")

Smile.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20211
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hey Shadow, where are all your fellow Bible study students to give the Bible thumbs down?

Jeremiah 42:17 ("So shall it be with all the men that set their faces to go into Egypt to sojourn there; they shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence: and none of them shall remain or escape from the evil that I will bring upon them")

versus

Jeremiah 44:28 ("Yet a small number that escape the sword shall return out of the land of Egypt into the land of Judah....")

Smile.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20212
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi phony.
Matthew 7:1 says you are not a Christian either.
Shadow is not a Christian. This proves it as well.

A true Christian would have to be extremely poor--as poor as the proverbial churchmouse. The Bible makes this quite clear:

•(a) "...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" (Luke 14:33);
•(b) "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" (Matt. 19:21);
•(c) "Sell your possessions and give alms" (Luke 12:33);
•(d) "But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" (Luke 11:41);
•(e) "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19-21);
•(f) "How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:23);
•(g) "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:23-24);
•(h) A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" (Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21),

JESUS: John 14:15 KJV, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

It seems clear enough to me that not only is Shadow not a Christian but hates Jesus as well. Shadow is a Christ-insanity-ist like KiMare.

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20213
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, my point made by your side.
Jesus holds all people in the same esteem.
On what basis do you assert that Jesus supported ss marriage.
I didn't say he did support it, I said he would if he lived today. Marriage had a different meaning back in Jesus' day. Women were viewed as property and they didn't have the same rights that men enjoyed. Their ability to own property was limited, thus, if a man divorced a woman, he would likely be condemning her to a life of poverty, which is one significant reason behind Jesus' admonition against divorce. For women, remaining single was not a viable option.

So, marriage had a different dynamic. It wasn't a union of two equals like we have today. It was a man taking one or more women into his household, and their primary job was to produce children, care for them, keep house and otherwise serve the man.

Same-sex marriage doesn't fit that scheme, and so it really wouldn't have occurred to Jesus or anyone else as a possible option. But today, men and women are equal, or are supposed to be, under the law. Both have the same property rights and women are not viewed as servants to men. That alone has changed the meaning of marriage, and if Jesus lived today, he would realize that and support same-sex marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20214
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!....
Your smile is gleaming with an oversimplified, ignorant insincerety.
...
The Bible does not give ANY definition to its quote of Jesus' remarks about "eunuchs" - a Greek word, by the way.
Jesus spoke in Aramaic.
IS IT fair to say that there were marked differences between the historical cultures in terms of Greek sexuality versus Hebrew cultural sexuality? Yes, it is a known fact that there were significant, considerable differences.
Language reflects conceptual and cultural differences. So, we do not know today exactly what Jesus meant back then, simply by reading either the Greek texts of scripture or by attempting to interpret Jesus' reported words, as translated into Greek, by placing them in a conceptual context of Hebrew scripture in terms of Old Testament.
All the Bible really gives us is Jesus' own statement that "some will not be able to understand this Teaching." But, we CAN legitimately infer that Jesus knew that humans include individuals who are not simply physically, mentally or spiritually heterosexual, either male or female. Given the fact that his own disciples were reported to have been disconcerted over Jesus' teachings regarding the ideas of adultery, marriage and divorce and Jewish (Mosaic) Law,...
What makes you think they immediately or fully understood His remarks about "eunuchs?"
I'll lay even odds that they didn't understand or at least some of them didn't understand. But, we don't have the benefit of reportings of further conversations and teachings and dissertations on the subject by Jesus, do we?
No. We do not.
...
Your supposedly Bible-based assertions are groundless, Kimare.
If anything, they are way off the mark.
...
Furthermore, IF Jesus was/is truly inspired with the Holy Spirit of Truth and Life (His own description), then His conceptual understandings, even if delivered in a peculiar cultural context, would actually be understood to be congruent with the most modern psychological understandings of Human sexuality.
That is because the closer we get to the Truth today, the closer we get to the actual Jesus, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Our constantly adaptive and most modern understandings, scientific, psychological, genetic, medical, et cetera, are an essential part of this "getting closer" to the Truth.
The Bible is intended to be a guide - TO - the Truth. But, it was never intended to - BE - the Truth. It has always been and continues to be, in the best sense, only a reflection of the Truth within ourselves; a Truth buried in the history and tapestry of human effort, full of folly and selfish error, given through the Hebrew tribal perspective.
If our most modern understandings are found to be adapting into a position of contradistinctive tension with traditional "Biblical" views, then we can rejoice in that we are actually moving toward the Truth and away from a scripture-based "Biblical, cultural, Traditional, Orthodox" set of self-promulgating misunderstandings.
We are, after all, each and every one of us, both a form of perfection and imperfection, infinite in Spirit melded with finiteness in our objective presence.
Rev. Ken
A priest and disciple of the Lord, Christ Jesus.
rev,

I'm sorry, but the source I used referenced the use of eunuchs to clearly describe homosexuals.

Your feeble speculation and opinion does nothing to address that. Nor do you still present a viable explanation of what the passage describes.

Moreover, by your own claim, Jesus was and is capable of providing information that supersedes the knowledge of that time. My interpretation does exactly that. Your opinion fails.

Additionally, a simple search will show countless examples of my interpretation. Which made finding one from a homosexual position incredibly easy.

Perhaps this is portion that should be eliminated from your 'bible' so the diminishing number of your small god aren't confused???
asd

Hawthorne, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20215
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!....
Your smile is gleaming with an oversimplified, ignorant insincerety.
...
The Bible does not give ANY definition to its quote of Jesus' remarks about "eunuchs" - a Greek word, by the way.
Jesus spoke in Aramaic.
IS IT fair to say that there were marked differences between the historical cultures in terms of Greek sexuality versus Hebrew cultural sexuality? Yes, it is a known fact that there were significant, considerable differences.
Language reflects conceptual and cultural differences. So, we do not know today exactly what Jesus meant back then, simply by reading either the Greek texts of scripture or by attempting to interpret Jesus' reported words, as translated into Greek, by placing them in a conceptual context of Hebrew scripture in terms of Old Testament.
All the Bible really gives us is Jesus' own statement that "some will not be able to understand this Teaching." But, we CAN legitimately infer that Jesus knew that humans include individuals who are not simply physically, mentally or spiritually heterosexual, either male or female. Given the fact that his own disciples were reported to have been disconcerted over Jesus' teachings regarding the ideas of adultery, marriage and divorce and Jewish (Mosaic) Law,...
What makes you think they immediately or fully understood His remarks about "eunuchs?"
I'll lay even odds that they didn't understand or at least some of them didn't understand. But, we don't have the benefit of reportings of further conversations and teachings and dissertations on the subject by Jesus, do we?
No. We do not.
...
Your supposedly Bible-based assertions are groundless, Kimare.
If anything, they are way off the mark.
...
Furthermore, IF Jesus was/is truly inspired with the Holy Spirit of Truth and Life (His own description), then His conceptual understandings, even if delivered in a peculiar cultural context, would actually be understood to be congruent with the most modern psychological understandings of Human sexuality.
That is because the closer we get to the Truth today, the closer we get to the actual Jesus, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Our constantly adaptive and most modern understandings, scientific, psychological, genetic, medical, et cetera, are an essential part of this "getting closer" to the Truth.
The Bible is intended to be a guide - TO - the Truth. But, it was never intended to - BE - the Truth. It has always been and continues to be, in the best sense, only a reflection of the Truth within ourselves; a Truth buried in the history and tapestry of human effort, full of folly and selfish error, given through the Hebrew tribal perspective.
If our most modern understandings are found to be adapting into a position of contradistinctive tension with traditional "Biblical" views, then we can rejoice in that we are actually moving toward the Truth and away from a scripture-based "Biblical, cultural, Traditional, Orthodox" set of self-promulgating misunderstandings.
We are, after all, each and every one of us, both a form of perfection and imperfection, infinite in Spirit melded with finiteness in our objective presence.
Rev. Ken
A priest and disciple of the Lord, Christ Jesus.
Can't you see that your having to jump through all these hoops you put up in this odd, circular pattern of assumptions and inferences and wholly disconnected, unrelated matter, only evidences a faulty premise? You appear to be trying to explain something that cannot be explained: why people make the choices that they do. People choose to bend over, they choose to suck and they choose to define themselves by this activity. People simply make these choices because they want to. And that may or may not be fine depending on one's thoughts on free will. What they do not have free will to do, or should not have free will to do is to impose their chosen deviancy on the rest of us.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20216
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Wolfgang E B wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say he did support it, I said he would if he lived today. Marriage had a different meaning back in Jesus' day. Women were viewed as property and they didn't have the same rights that men enjoyed. Their ability to own property was limited, thus, if a man divorced a woman, he would likely be condemning her to a life of poverty, which is one significant reason behind Jesus' admonition against divorce. For women, remaining single was not a viable option.
So, marriage had a different dynamic. It wasn't a union of two equals like we have today. It was a man taking one or more women into his household, and their primary job was to produce children, care for them, keep house and otherwise serve the man.
Same-sex marriage doesn't fit that scheme, and so it really wouldn't have occurred to Jesus or anyone else as a possible option. But today, men and women are equal, or are supposed to be, under the law. Both have the same property rights and women are not viewed as servants to men. That alone has changed the meaning of marriage, and if Jesus lived today, he would realize that and support same-sex marriage.
Your description of marriage is inaccurate. The primary drive of marriage has always been children. Other issues relate to a much smaller segment of the cultures. Were it not for children, there would never have been a cross cultural practice of marriage in every single know culture. Instead, we would see spotted examples of cultures where marriage did not exist.

Moreover, Jesus was very clear about the basis for marriage. It is God's design and purpose. The Pharisees were presenting the same argument you are trying to use. Jesus drew it tighter than even the Law given to Moses did.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20218
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your description of marriage is inaccurate. The primary drive of marriage has always been children. Other issues relate to a much smaller segment of the cultures. Were it not for children, there would never have been a cross cultural practice of marriage in every single know culture. Instead, we would see spotted examples of cultures where marriage did not exist.
Moreover, Jesus was very clear about the basis for marriage. It is God's design and purpose. The Pharisees were presenting the same argument you are trying to use. Jesus drew it tighter than even the Law given to Moses did.
No.

Jesus merely drew the parallel. Yes, of course he was right. But, you cannot put the cart before the horse and neither did he. He noted that marriage came about as a result of the pair-bond. Not the other way around.

Marriage, as a sacrament, is a ritual recognition of the natural pair-bond. It brings the local families and tribal culture into a recognition of the boundary of trust and exclusivity established between the two being married, inside of the boundary created and recognized, and the families and tribe on the outside of the boundary. It draws on the personal integrity and commitment of the two to each other's welfare and spiritual freedom.

The previous poster is correct in noting that the female was considered to be "property." That was the reason for the tradition of dowry. You are correct in noting that the pair-bond between male and female is driven by the potential of reproduction. But, that drive is neither always fruitful nor is it always the primary reason for marriage to many couples.

Furthermore, many cultures defined marriage in terms of polygamy, even though the pair-bond remains a significant natural force.

Personal property, holdings, territory and preferred hunting and gathering grounds, access to trade, peaceful coexistence, lawful morality, tradition, language, alliance against adversity, progeny, inheritance, and many other influences are all building blocks that arise out of the creation of family and the establishment of tribe and leadership.

Rev. Ken

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20219
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Jesus merely drew the parallel. Yes, of course he was right. But, you cannot put the cart before the horse and neither did he. He noted that marriage came about as a result of the pair-bond. Not the other way around.
Marriage, as a sacrament, is a ritual recognition of the natural pair-bond. It brings the local families and tribal culture into a recognition of the boundary of trust and exclusivity established between the two being married, inside of the boundary created and recognized, and the families and tribe on the outside of the boundary. It draws on the personal integrity and commitment of the two to each other's welfare and spiritual freedom.
The previous poster is correct in noting that the female was considered to be "property." That was the reason for the tradition of dowry. You are correct in noting that the pair-bond between male and female is driven by the potential of reproduction. But, that drive is neither always fruitful nor is it always the primary reason for marriage to many couples.
Furthermore, many cultures defined marriage in terms of polygamy, even though the pair-bond remains a significant natural force.
Personal property, holdings, territory and preferred hunting and gathering grounds, access to trade, peaceful coexistence, lawful morality, tradition, language, alliance against adversity, progeny, inheritance, and many other influences are all building blocks that arise out of the creation of family and the establishment of tribe and leadership.
Rev. Ken
Too funny rev,

No, Jesus did not merely draw the 'parallel'. He adamantly confirmed the original design.

You just HAVE to spin it in mindless ways. The 'pair rebonding' IS marriage. The ceremony is simply a formal recognition of it.

And the simple reality is just as I stated, children are the primary basis of marriage. You agreed but pointlessly had to note some of numerous other customs and influences.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20220
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

asd wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't you see that your having to jump through all these hoops you put up in this odd, circular pattern of assumptions and inferences and wholly disconnected, unrelated matter, only evidences a faulty premise? You appear to be trying to explain something that cannot be explained: why people make the choices that they do. People choose to bend over, they choose to suck and they choose to define themselves by this activity. People simply make these choices because they want to. And that may or may not be fine depending on one's thoughts on free will. What they do not have free will to do, or should not have free will to do is to impose their chosen deviancy on the rest of us.
Why is it that you Christ-insanity-ists always see reality backwards?

It is the white, male, heterosexual Christian who is imposing their chosen deviancy of superiority and uniformity onto minorities who would like to be left alone.

America has planted the seeds of destruction to the pedestal that white, male, heterosexual Christians have placed themselves on. This whole entire conversation/discussion is about those not wanting to have their pedestals destroyed which forces them to share America with people they would prefer to feel superiour to.

The days of you bigots deciding what other people can and can't do with their bodies and their lives are almost over. I can hardly wait.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20221
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Too
•(a) Biblicists are not to judge others ("Judge not, that ye be not judged"--Matt. 7:1 and "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven"--Luke 6:37), despite the fact that judges, juries, voters, employers, teachers, etc. are constantly judging others.
•(b) Believers are supposed to hate their parents when they follow Jesus ("If any man come to me, and not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethern, and sister, yet, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple"--Luke 14:26).
•(c) They are not to oppose evil ("But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"--Matt. 5:39). If this were followed one might just as well abolish law enforcement.
•(d) Believers are not to use violence ("Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"--Matt. 26:52). The degree to which Christians have ignored this maxim would fill volumes.
•(e) Biblicists are not allowed to call anyone "father" ("And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven"--Matt. 23:9). Not only is this rule ignored, but Catholicism uses "father" as a specific title.
•(f) Christians are not supposed to plan or prepare. God will provide ("Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or that ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.... Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, not gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feedth them. Are ye not much better than they?"--Matt. 6:25-34 and Luke 12:22-31 inclusive).
•(g) Lastly, Jesus, who clearly is of greater importance than Paul, said the Old Law was to remain in force until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished ("For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"--Matt. 5:18-19 RSV). Heaven and earth still exist and many prophecies are not yet fulfilled. Consequently, biblicists should still be following the Old Law.

Smile.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20222
Sep 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Shadow is not a Christian. This proves it as well.
A true Christian would have to be extremely poor--as poor as the proverbial churchmouse. The Bible makes this quite clear:
•(a) "...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" (Luke 14:33);
•(b) "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" (Matt. 19:21);
•(c) "Sell your possessions and give alms" (Luke 12:33);
•(d) "But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" (Luke 11:41);
•(e) "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19-21);
•(f) "How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:23);
•(g) "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:23-24);
•(h) A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" (Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21),
JESUS: John 14:15 KJV, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."
It seems clear enough to me that not only is Shadow not a Christian but hates Jesus as well. Shadow is a Christ-insanity-ist like KiMare.
Exactly. Just look at all the judge-its. He lives in open rebellion to the Bible's many commands.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 18,081 - 18,100 of24,702
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••