Episcopal Drama Rocks SC

Oct 17, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: FITSNews

The national Episcopal church has advised South Carolina Bishop Mark Lawrence that he has "abandoned" the church as a result of his refusal to accept its teachings on gay marriage and the ordination of gay and female clergy.

Comments (Page 59)

Showing posts 1,161 - 1,180 of1,813
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1292
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
...I need you to tell me why you HATE The Episcopal Church and why you are here solely to destroy it and expose it as you said ...
You only have one of three "assertions" correct.
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove to me ...
I don't know who you think you are, but on Topix, you're just another nameless troll that no one is accountable to.

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1293
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
You only have one of three "assertions" correct.
<quoted text>
I don't know who you think you are, but on Topix, you're just another nameless troll that no one is accountable to.
Please Joe tell me again why it is that you are here. You are not Episcopalian. You do not like the Episcopal Church.
Phil McGroen

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1294
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it clear, he hates - God loves, we follow God.
:-)
That's probably sufficient for an idiot on "The Lost Highway!

God is a God of love, but not only love. God portrays himself as a God of judgment and equity. Homosexuality no matter how you try to bend the corners is a fleshly sin at best fornication and at worst "filth of the flesh." Just as God designated boundaries for the seas, the heavens, and the "fountians of the deep" he also set boundaries for MAN. One of those boundaries was that a man did not have sexual relations (fornication) with is mother, sister, in-laws OR another man. To say that God love the sinners is true and through the gift of his son and his brutal death, he prepared a
way of escape for the repentant sinner.

While grace is the free gift of God, it is not as Bonheoffer stated "cheap grace." If you live in the "lust of the flesh" which defines HOMOSEXUALITY you have denied Christ and have no forgiveness for that sin. It's amusing the gyrations and wordsmything that goes on this blog to cover HOMOSEXUAL acts with the blood of Christ. Those who say that they believe in Christ yet continue in the "filth of the flesh" have no way of escape from their sins and "their sin" will be upon their own heads. Quit belaboring the point or living in "cognative dissonance."

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1295
Feb 6, 2013
 
Joe DeCaro wrote:
I don't know who you think you are, but on Topix, you're just another nameless troll that no one is accountable to.
Well hon, I'm the person who is calling you nothing more than a pathological liar, for making up a whole slew of "quotes" you insist are from Rabbi Benjamin Stein (retired) but neither you, nor the good Rabbi himself, seem to be able to prove are true. Do I expect you to answer me? No, I don't see why you would be obliged to, except perhaps for the fear that I'm going to remind everybody that you are nothing more than a pathological liar, any time I see you whip out another unconfirmable quote from Rabbi Stein to use on somebody. I don't mind, really. I'm more than happy to deflate your sanctimonious ego.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1296
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Phil McGroen wrote:
<quoted text>
That's probably sufficient for an idiot on "The Lost Highway!
God is a God of love, but not only love. God portrays himself as a God of judgment and equity. Homosexuality no matter how you try to bend the corners is a fleshly sin at best fornication and at worst "filth of the flesh." Just as God designated boundaries for the seas, the heavens, and the "fountians of the deep" he also set boundaries for MAN. One of those boundaries was that a man did not have sexual relations (fornication) with is mother, sister, in-laws OR another man. To say that God love the sinners is true and through the gift of his son and his brutal death, he prepared a
way of escape for the repentant sinner.
While grace is the free gift of God, it is not as Bonheoffer stated "cheap grace." If you live in the "lust of the flesh" which defines HOMOSEXUALITY you have denied Christ and have no forgiveness for that sin. It's amusing the gyrations and wordsmything that goes on this blog to cover HOMOSEXUAL acts with the blood of Christ. Those who say that they believe in Christ yet continue in the "filth of the flesh" have no way of escape from their sins and "their sin" will be upon their own heads. Quit belaboring the point or living in "cognative dissonance."
The above poster errs by attempting to define homosexuality as sin.

Christ Jesus was never reported to have said anything about homosexuality. His only comment that in any way can be interpreted to refer to homosexuality, and that is not certain, is a short passage about eunuchs. In this passage, he clearly does NOT condemn them. But, he does say that few will understand what he has said in this teaching.

Rev. Ken

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1298
Feb 7, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
Well hon, I'm the person who is calling you nothing more than a pathological liar, for making up a whole slew of "quotes" you insist are from Rabbi Benjamin Stein (retired)...
Fool, his name is Israel Stein, which shows that you just got caught in your own web of lies.
Phil McGroen

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1299
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
The above poster errs by attempting to define homosexuality as sin.
Christ Jesus was never reported to have said anything about homosexuality. His only comment that in any way can be interpreted to refer to homosexuality, and that is not certain, is a short passage about eunuchs. In this passage, he clearly does NOT condemn them. But, he does say that few will understand what he has said in this teaching.
Rev. Ken
As Jesus mentioned on numerous occasions testifying against the hypocrisy of the Religious elite of his day by referring to themselves as "Rabbi" or "Master" we (Christians" should also ridicule those claiming to be Christians, but referring to themselves as "reverend" Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin reverendus, gerundive of revereri or "worthy of reverence."

It's really as comical a title as it is presumptuous and pathetically pompous laden with false pride. Jesus taught these fools by saying "you do greatly err, not knowing the scriptures" which seems to always apply to the clown fancying himself as Rev. Ken.

Jesus directly never mentioned HOMOSEXUALITY because the penalty for this SIN during his time was death; Yes, HOMOSEXUALITY was then and is now considered as sin by the "Household of Faith" as did Jesus.

Leviticus 20:13 states,“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a
detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." Their blood
Guiltiness is upon them.”

This is the Law of Moses of which Jesus was the High Priest and the perfect practitioner of its edicts. To argue otherwise is foolishness and ignorance.

rev ken, falsely identifies Matt 19:12 as an excuse for homosexuality. It is not, Romans 1:27 states in part,“The men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

In Matt 19:12 Jesus was not discussing the SIN of the Flesh which is HOMOSEXUALITY but Divorce and Remarriage. MOST Self-Proclaimed Christians IGNORE Jesus' teaching on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage just as those of his day rejected it. This is as Jesus rightly proclaims "because of the hardness of their hearts." Mark 10:12 is very specific is stating that if a man marries and divorces - he commits adultery with the compliment being true with the woman. Not a very popular command in this day and time. Yet, Jesus will hold true believers to this standard.

In a nutshell, Jesus did not forbid marriage or the sexual expression and practices within its confines. What he does empathically condemn is any sexual conduct outside of this bond and its boundaries. Adultery, fornication and without a doubt HOMOSEXUALITY are all within this category.

reverend kin,(what a joke, even the angels revile worship) needs to study the scripture rather than comments on things that are above his spiritual station and seek advice rather than give it.

At least he's read someone else’s weak interpretation of this text and at least he's heard of the text even though he cannot recall it. Remember you cannot take a single citation and prove a point. As the scripture "cannot be broken" or contradicted, one citation a defense does not make.

Better luck next time. "Study to show thyself approved!" You missed this time rev' just like Cain did with his sacrifice and hopefully you know how that worked out!

Pope Pious Phil McGroen! Ohhh... that sounds good. Not!

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1300
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Phil McGroen wrote:
<quoted text>
As Jesus mentioned on numerous occasions testifying against the hypocrisy of the Religious elite of his day by referring to themselves as "Rabbi" or "Master" we (Christians" should also ridicule those claiming to be Christians, but referring to themselves as "reverend" Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin reverendus, gerundive of revereri or "worthy of reverence."
It's really as comical a title as it is presumptuous and pathetically pompous laden with false pride. Jesus taught these fools by saying "you do greatly err, not knowing the scriptures" which seems to always apply to the clown fancying himself as Rev. Ken.
Jesus directly never mentioned HOMOSEXUALITY because the penalty for this SIN during his time was death; Yes, HOMOSEXUALITY was then and is now considered as sin by the "Household of Faith" as did Jesus.
Leviticus 20:13 states,“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a
detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." Their blood
Guiltiness is upon them.”
This is the Law of Moses of which Jesus was the High Priest and the perfect practitioner of its edicts. To argue otherwise is foolishness and ignorance.
rev ken, falsely identifies Matt 19:12 as an excuse for homosexuality. It is not, Romans 1:27 states in part,“The men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”
In Matt 19:12 Jesus was not discussing the SIN of the Flesh which is HOMOSEXUALITY but Divorce and Remarriage. MOST Self-Proclaimed Christians IGNORE Jesus' teaching on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage just as those of his day rejected it. This is as Jesus rightly proclaims "because of the hardness of their hearts." Mark 10:12 is very specific is stating that if a man marries and divorces - he commits adultery with the compliment being true with the woman. Not a very popular command in this day and time. Yet, Jesus will hold true believers to this standard.
In a nutshell, Jesus did not forbid marriage or the sexual expression and practices within its confines. What he does empathically condemn is any sexual conduct outside of this bond and its boundaries. Adultery, fornication and without a doubt HOMOSEXUALITY are all within this category.
reverend kin,(what a joke, even the angels revile worship) needs to study the scripture rather than comments on things that are above his spiritual station and seek advice rather than give it.
At least he's read someone else’s weak interpretation of this text and at least he's heard of the text even though he cannot recall it. Remember you cannot take a single citation and prove a point. As the scripture "cannot be broken" or contradicted, one citation a defense does not make.
Better luck next time. "Study to show thyself approved!" You missed this time rev' just like Cain did with his sacrifice and hopefully you know how that worked out!
Pope Pious Phil McGroen! Ohhh... that sounds good. Not!
LOL!!!.... Well, if it sounds so good,... or not,
why do you continue to act like you think it actually does?

As for the prefix, "Rev.," somebody else gave me that. Out of respect for their discipleship in Christ Jesus, I accepted it and wear it with all of its trappings. You recognize it, even if you don't like it.

Yes, Jesus is the High Priest, after the Order of Melchizedek. Why did he not and does he not demand the punishments that the Law prescribes?

As for the sin of adultery, Jesus said that the mere thought of adultery is the sin.

Like he said, "Not everyone can accept this teaching. But, only those to whom it is given.... Let anyone accept this who can."

Then, immediately following his teaching of this, he said, "Let the little children come to me...."

There are many things that you don't understand, yet, Phil.

Rev. Ken

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1301
Feb 7, 2013
 
Joe DeCaro wrote:
Fool, his name is Israel Stein, which shows that you just got caught in your own web of lies.
A brain fart on my part for which I apologize for any issues you choose to have with my mistake. Yes, his name is Rabbi Israel Stein (retired), a name which I have gotten correctly in every other post in which I have used it. The sole web of lies here my needs more practicing Christian, is the one of hundreds upon hundreds of posts by you, "quoting" Rabbi Israel Stein (retired) for which you are unable to prove that said "quotes" exist anywhere except in your own pathological mind. Remember that one? I do.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1302
Feb 7, 2013
 
Phil McGroen wrote:
Jesus directly never mentioned HOMOSEXUALITY
That is because prior to 1952; homosexual was not in the Holy Bible
.
Jesus called it 'eunuches' back in the bible era:
++++++++++
Matthew 19:9> "And I say vnto you, Whosoeuer shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery."
.
Matthew 19:10> ¶ His disciples say vnto him, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marrie."
.
Matthew 19:11> But hee said vnto them, "All men cannot receiue this saying, saue they to whom it is giuen."
.
Matthew 19:12> "For there are some Eunuches, which were so borne from their mothers wombe: and there are some Eunuches, which were made Eunuches of men: and there be Eunuches, which haue made themselues Eunuches for the kingdome of heauens sake. He that is able to receiue it, let him receiue it."
++++++++++
.
Sociologists did not create the word 'homosexual' until 1895; only 118 years ago
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php...
.
The fundies added 'homosexual' when they wrote their own version of 'the bible' in 1952
.
Apparently you bought one of the fundie's fake 'bibles'
.
Fundamentalism and Christianity do not mix; hence the constant wrangling between the two religions

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1303
Feb 7, 2013
 
Phil McGroen wrote:
<quoted text>
That's probably sufficient for an idiot on "The Lost Highway!
God is a God of love, but not only love. God portrays himself as a God of judgment and equity. Homosexuality no matter how you try to bend the corners is a fleshly sin at best fornication and at worst "filth of the flesh." Just as God designated boundaries for the seas, the heavens, and the "fountians of the deep" he also set boundaries for MAN. One of those boundaries was that a man did not have sexual relations (fornication) with is mother, sister, in-laws OR another man. To say that God love the sinners is true and through the gift of his son and his brutal death, he prepared a
way of escape for the repentant sinner.
While grace is the free gift of God, it is not as Bonheoffer stated "cheap grace." If you live in the "lust of the flesh" which defines HOMOSEXUALITY you have denied Christ and have no forgiveness for that sin. It's amusing the gyrations and wordsmything that goes on this blog to cover HOMOSEXUAL acts with the blood of Christ. Those who say that they believe in Christ yet continue in the "filth of the flesh" have no way of escape from their sins and "their sin" will be upon their own heads. Quit belaboring the point or living in "cognative dissonance."
Good thing we don't have you as God, Moshe would not have been allowed to Exit, David would never have been King, Lot would be ash, Solomon would be considered an idiot etc. etc. etc.

God doesn't need your help unless it is in the loving department....

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1304
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
A brain fart on my part ...
Oh no you don't: you've been so busy accusing me that you lost track of your own lies.

BUSTED!

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1305
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
That is because prior to 1952; homosexual was not in the Holy Bible
.
Jesus called it 'eunuches' back in the bible era ...
eunuch:

1. A castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts.
2. A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed.
3. Informal An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man.

The only plausible reference to a sexually active homosexual is (3).

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1306
Feb 7, 2013
 
Where is the RABBI ???? Benjamin Israel or any>
Phil McGroen

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1307
Feb 7, 2013
 
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
Good thing we don't have you as God, Moshe would not have been allowed to Exit, David would never have been King, Lot would be ash, Solomon would be considered an idiot etc. etc. etc.
God doesn't need your help unless it is in the loving department....
Not worthy of a respone! Speed on your on the "Lost Highway" Hell aint' half full!
Phil McGroen

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1308
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!.... Well, if it sounds so good,... or not,
why do you continue to act like you think it actually does?
As for the prefix, "Rev.," somebody else gave me that. Out of respect for their discipleship in Christ Jesus, I accepted it and wear it with all of its trappings. You recognize it, even if you don't like it.
Rev. Ken
Oh, I do understand ALL to Well that there will be "sinners" with "itching ears" and "false teachers" JUST LIKE YOU!

The reverend title is silly and pompous. Who care that some one gave it to you, it's still a PRIDEFUL joke.

They didn't call Jesus, Reverend Jesus, just Jesus. It's still silly and as transparent as your misguided arguments. Had you not been attempting to "wrest the scriptures to your own destruction" you might have taken Matt 19:12 in context and realized that the obvious, but once again you are deceiptful in your approach bringing damnation upon your own head and those of any onther fool who would call you "rev" trapping and all ((I enjoyed that Freudian slip pun though)(even if to suck up to you)!)

Jesus recognized that his teaching regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage were new and shocking to his audience. Why even his own disciples questioned him later on the topic. This had nothing to do with the SIN of HOMOSEXUALITY. It has everything to do with marriage and the sanctity thereof. Of course, you're just a dime store one stop would be who testifies to the highest bidder. A mere spiritual politician who "suffers the masses" in return for a fake title. This is probably true for the title of your soul as well.

Don't try to hustle me, I know the scriptures and I know the imitation as well. There is One God, One Son, One, Gospel, One Sacrifice and One Salvation. All other do not and will not apply.

I'll simplify it by saying SEX outside the confines of marriage is fornication. Fornication is the "filth of the flesh" and yes, SIN! Sin separates from God, and not being the Nicolatian you are I do not CHEAPEN the Sacrifice of Jesus by condoning SIN and therefore becoming an enabler of SIN. "He that wishes him Godspeed becomes partaker in his evil deeds" Your comments are the old, the more I sin, the more grace abounds.

God Does not now, nor did he in the past or will he ever condone sin. Repent rev, lest you fall into further condemnation by the blasphemy of your own mouth!
Phil McGroen

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1309
Feb 7, 2013
 
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
That is because prior to 1952; homosexual was not in the Holy Bible
.
Fundamentalism and Christianity do not mix; hence the constant wrangling between the two religions
Jesus did not call HOMOSEXUALS eunchs. He was referring to the manner in which MEN not (Sissies) were to conduct themselves were they to become divorced.

If you are married and you divorce your wife, you commit adultery. If you marry another while your spouse remains alive you live in Adultery!

So, to prevent this "SIN of the FLESH" Men who were divorced were to remain unmarried and for the purposes of a linage be as a eunuch. This teaching had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the PERVERSION OF HOMOSEXUALITY.

Here's on for you Jesus never mentioned HOMOSEXUALITY, just as HE never mentioned the tribe of BENJAMIN with whom the 11 Tribes of Israel destroyed because of their HOMOSEXUALITY and DEBAUCHERY! Ever hear of that on SKIDDDDD!

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE DO NOT MIX. PERIOD. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN UNTO DEATH.

SORRY,

I DIDn'T WRITE THE SCRIPTURE but will not allow faux "revs" to blaspheme either! Batter Up!
Phil McGroen

Columbia, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1310
Feb 7, 2013
 
***** PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT ******

Homosexual Health - Reasons for Homosexual Health
There are at least four reasons. First, monogamy is not the main issue&#151;homosexual behavior is. Homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy, not just multiple-partner homosexual acts. This is especially true of male homosexuality. Does anyone really believe that it is natural and healthy to insert the penis into the rectum&#151; the organ whose sole purpose is to expel poisons from the body?

The rectum is a one-way street. It&#146;s a sewer. It was designed that way. Labeling its abuse as an act of &#147;love&#148; will not change that fact.

The standard homosexual response to this is, &#147;It&#146;'s natural for me because I desire to do it.&#148; I don&#146;t mean &#147;natural&#148; in the sense of desire, but &#147;natural&#148; in the sense of design. Human beings have all kinds of &#147;natural&#148; desires to do things that are physically destructive (e.g. smoking, getting drunk, violence, etc.), and those things often feel good. But we don&#146;t excuse those behaviors because they come &#147;naturally.&#148; The human body was not designed for anal intercourse. Such an act violates the natural design, and having a desire to engage in it does not change the fact that it is unnatural and physically destructive.

Second, coupled homosexuals tend to practice more anal intercourse and more anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. They also forego safer-sex practices because they are &#147;in love. In other words, coupled homosexuals tend to engage in more risky sexual contact than their single counterparts. So while married men improve their health and life span by being faithful to their wives, there is no comparable benefit in homosexual couples.

Third, if AIDS will not break promiscuity in homosexuals, it is unlikely government-backed marriage will. As AIDS is falling among heterosexuals, it is rising among homosexual men.

Finally, even if monogamy could reduce health problems, monogamy is the exception rather than the rule among homosexuals. The average number of sexual partners in a lifetime for a heterosexual is four, but for a homosexual it is fifty. The vast Sex in America survey published by the University of Chicago found monogamy among heterosexuals to be 83 percent but less than 2 percent for homosexuals.30 Another survey had more moderate results, but still found infidelity in about 62 percent of gay couples. That led researchers in the Journal of Family Psychology to write, &#147;The practice of sexual non-monogamy among some gay couples is one variable that differentiates gay and heterosexual couples.&#148;31

Why is monogamy much more common between men and women? Could it be because men and women are designed for one another and are therefore complementary? Think about it. One of the least-mentioned aspects of this debate is how men and women complement one another. Each sex balances and moderates the other by providing what&#146;s lacking in the other.

However, in same-sex relationships, the pairing of identicals propels them to extremes not balance. Lesbians tend to push one another to emotional extremes as evidenced by the intense demands they often put on one another, but male homosexuals experience the most damaging effects of imbalance. Instead of the sex drive of the man being balanced by the emotional needs of the woman, male homosexuals reinforce and amplify the sex drive of one another. That&#146;s why their behavior often becomes compulsive to the point of explosive promiscuity&#151;anywhere from 21-43 percent of homosexual men have several hundred sexual partners!32

RECTUM, ALMOST KILLED EM! LOL I LOVE THAT ONE!

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1311
Feb 7, 2013
 
Phil McGroen wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus did not call HOMOSEXUALS eunchs. He was referring to the manner in which MEN not (Sissies) were to conduct themselves were they to become divorced.
If you are married and you divorce your wife, you commit adultery. If you marry another while your spouse remains alive you live in Adultery!
So, to prevent this "SIN of the FLESH" Men who were divorced were to remain unmarried and for the purposes of a linage be as a eunuch. This teaching had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the PERVERSION OF HOMOSEXUALITY.
Here's on for you Jesus never mentioned HOMOSEXUALITY, just as HE never mentioned the tribe of BENJAMIN with whom the 11 Tribes of Israel destroyed because of their HOMOSEXUALITY and DEBAUCHERY! Ever hear of that on SKIDDDDD!
HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE DO NOT MIX. PERIOD. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN UNTO DEATH.
SORRY,
I DIDn'T WRITE THE SCRIPTURE but will not allow faux "revs" to blaspheme either! Batter Up!
Do you use your name Phil on GRINDR?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1312
Feb 7, 2013
 
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
eunuch:
1. A castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts.
2. A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed.
3. Informal An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man.
The only plausible reference to a sexually active homosexual is (3).
Your definition is different from Jesus's definition:
++++++++++
Matthew 19:9> "And I say vnto you, Whosoeuer shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery."
.
Matthew 19:10> ¶ His disciples say vnto him, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marrie."
.
Matthew 19:11> But hee said vnto them, "All men cannot receiue this saying, saue they to whom it is giuen."
.
Matthew 19:12> "For there are some Eunuches, which were so borne from their mothers wombe: and there are some Eunuches, which were made Eunuches of men: and there be Eunuches, which haue made themselues Eunuches for the kingdome of heauens sake. He that is able to receiue it, let him receiue it."
++++++++++
.
So which will it be; Joe the Almighty; or Lord Jesus Christ?
.
Hmmmmmmm???
.
;o))

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,161 - 1,180 of1,813
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••