“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#483851 Feb 3, 2013
Truths wrote:
<quoted text>
That sure was a great game (c:
Maybe the Ravens were underestimated?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#483852 Feb 3, 2013
Drew H wrote:
<quoted text>
Love you, Sis.
And I love to Brag on God.
Should I assume our conversation about what beliefs of Jesus apply today and what actions someone can observe to know who is saved?

Truthfully Drew if you do not intend on ever completing these conversations as this has happened time and time again I would appreciate the courtesy of letting me know up front. I will accept that you will say things like I won't see until God opens my eyes and that I won't be getting much else out of you. I put some real time and thought into providing the proper scripture and trying to get you to open up and actually address it and time and time again it turns out to be a waste of time.

I think the courteous thing to do would be let someone know up front and I won't pursue it. Obviously when someone says you won't see until God opens your eyes you hope they will be willing to delve into it but I'd rather know you will not then think you will and waste a bunch of time for no reason. LeLe was speculating as to why your foes get upset with you. I don't consider you a foe but I do find it frustrating that you continue to make accusations and then won't talk about it. But I would choose that over finding out after putting a bunch of time and effort into it

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#483853 Feb 3, 2013
Edit Drew

Correction

meant to say..

should i assume those conversations have ended?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#483854 Feb 3, 2013
Drew H wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not here to condemn and throw stones at others who believe differently..
Drew

You told Grace in one conversation when others were saying we still need to repent when we sin that it is the devil who wants us to feel bad about our sins. Then in another post you told her we will not see until God opens our eyes

So just saying people are blind are promoting the devil's agenda is no big deal in your opinion?

You do know that when people say "screw you" with a smile on their face or in a calm manner it still means "screw you" right?

Just because you pleasantly tell people they are blind and promoting the devil's agenda doesn't make it any less stone throwing

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#483855 Feb 3, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Maybe the Ravens were underestimated?
I'd assume brother coaching brother and Raven overcoming back-to-back 9.5 underdog status the previous two weeks would ensure nobody underestimated them but hard to understand how SF could dig themselves that big of a hole.

Although guess it has been kind of a pattern. They came back by 17 against Seattle and I think about the same the game before. Raven, man it was just there year of destiny I think. They lost 4 of their last 5 games and only made it into the playoffs by completing a 4th and 29 by throwing a 7yd underneath slant and getting the rest on RAC yards and then had a hail mary basically in the first playoff game to advance. It is freakly how things just seem to line up for teams some years

(T) Peace

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#483856 Feb 3, 2013
Edit

the extra please I meant to delete as I was backing up a sentence and re-wording it

I did put emphasis specifically that I didn't want to talk by t-mail but didn't say it like that so making the correction so it does not look like embellishment

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#483857 Feb 3, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd assume brother coaching brother and Raven overcoming back-to-back 9.5 underdog status the previous two weeks would ensure nobody underestimated them but hard to understand how SF could dig themselves that big of a hole.
Although guess it has been kind of a pattern. They came back by 17 against Seattle and I think about the same the game before. Raven, man it was just there year of destiny I think. They lost 4 of their last 5 games and only made it into the playoffs by completing a 4th and 29 by throwing a 7yd underneath slant and getting the rest on RAC yards and then had a hail mary basically in the first playoff game to advance. It is freakly how things just seem to line up for teams some years
(T) Peace
Pretty wild. I agree. LOL!

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#483858 Feb 3, 2013
Romans 4:14-16
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all
__________

First, let me remind you of Paul's use of general terms in his letters. This is one of those times.

As we can see, the term "law" was used three times. And we can easily misinterpret this to mean the whole law. But, to understand if Paul was referring to the whole law or not, we need not look any further than the subject matter prior to the above verses.

Beginning at verse 9, we can see that Paul began discussing the law of circumcision. And it's the law of circumcision that Paul was referring to when he used the general term "law" in verses 14 through 16.

According to the law, only those circumcised on the eighth day could enter into the covenant of sacrifice. But, as Paul pointed out, the promises to Abraham were made to him even before he, himself, was circumcised. Therefore, the most High made a way to circumvent the law, by having the law of circumcision fulfilled in and by His son. By this circumvention, the Gentiles could also enter into the covenant of sacrifice without being circumcised. And this way, the Gentiles could also became heirs of what Christ's blood accomplished, just like those that were under the law of circumcision before then. And to note, according to the law, even if a stranger was circumcised, they still weren't allowed to enter the covenant of sacrifice. I might be wrong, but if memory serves me correctly, Exodus 29 and Leviticus 22 explains this prohibition. Now, as to this circumvention, this is why Paul wrote, "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."

When we read the original stipulations of the law of circumcision, the most High said, "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." Now, this might not be known, but to be "cut off," in this sense, means "to be destroyed." And this is the wrath Paul was referring to. But, when he wrote, just after this, "..for where no law is, there is no transgression," this is the circumvention I'm referring to.

As the law of circumcision was fulfilled in and by our anointed Savior, this opened a passageway for all people. So, now, even if a person wasn't circumcised, they could still enter into the new covenant of sacrifice because, all in all, the literal letter of the stipulation became null and void. If we can remember, the penalty of death was also fulfilled in and by our anointed Savior. But, now, all that was necessary was faith in what was accomplished on the cross. And in this sense, our faith is placed on the fact that through the shed blood of our anointed Savior, that all peoples, nations, tongues, and what-have-you, can enter into a covenant with the most High without being circumcised. To circumcise our sons would prove a lack of faith in this, in other words. And this is why Paul warned, "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." The "whole law," here includes animal sacrifice, all the precepts of the Sabbaths, the curses of the law, and pretty much all that's instructed under the authority of the Levitical, ceremonial laws.

In conclusion, Paul wasn't referring to the whole law in verses 14 through 16 of Romans 4. Paul was referring only to the law of circumcision.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#483859 Feb 3, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.
QUESTION: What is your position on homosexuality?
You now my position as I have discussed it in length in several rooms with you and several times coming to your defense when many Christians wouldn't touch that subject. So since you know my position I can only assume you and Catcher keep asking in here hoping to cause division. While I am not worried about backlash and will maintain to anyone we have no right to single out sins or to show hate I do think that is pretty unethical of you

Next time you wonder why more Christians don't speak up you may want to look in the mirror and remind yourself that you will try to use it against them at a later date. I find it stunning that a situation so personal to you would be sacrificed for a personal agenda. I guess if people want to make it harder on those who try to speak their conscience on what they think is socially moral behavior as far as how we treat others and make it harder on those who speak out against prejudice that is your decision.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#483860 Feb 3, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Pretty wild. I agree. LOL!
Yep yep

I thought the lights going out was going make for a crazy storyline had SF punched it in from 1st and goal

Definitely was a fun game

(T) Peace

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#483861 Feb 3, 2013
I'd like to add that if anyone chooses to circumcise their son, or even themselves, for any reason other than to enter into a covenant with the most High, then go right ahead. Circumcision, within itself, is not sin, nor does it prove any lack of faith. Circumcision would only prove we lack faith if we choose to circumcise our sons, or ourselves, in order to enter into a covenant with the most High, as if the fact that the practice was fulfilled in His son isn't actually true.

Again, thank you for your time and consideration.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#483862 Feb 3, 2013
Paul wrote:
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.
I got ^this^ idea from Senecus. Thanks, Brother. Anyway...

First, let me remind you of Paul's use of general terms in his letters. This is one of those times.

As we can see, the term "law" was used three times. And we can easily misinterpret this to mean the whole law. But, to understand if Paul was referring to the whole law or not, we need not look any further than the subject matter prior to the above verses.

Beginning at verse 9, we can see that Paul began discussing the law of circumcision. And it's the law of circumcision that Paul was referring to when he used the general term "law" in verses 14 through 16.

According to the law, only those circumcised on the eighth day could enter into the covenant of sacrifice. But, as Paul pointed out, the promises to Abraham were made to him even before he, himself, was circumcised. Therefore, the most High made a way to circumvent the law, by having the law of circumcision fulfilled in and by His son. By this circumvention, the Gentiles could also enter into the covenant of sacrifice without being circumcised. And this way, the Gentiles could also became heirs of what Christ's blood accomplished, just like those that were under the law of circumcision before then. And to note, according to the law, even if a stranger was circumcised, they still weren't allowed to enter the covenant of sacrifice. I might be wrong, but if memory serves me correctly, Exodus 29 and Leviticus 22 explains this prohibition. Now, as to this circumvention, this is why Paul wrote, "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."

When we read the original stipulations of the law of circumcision, the most High said, "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." Now, this might not be known, but to be "cut off," in this sense, means "to be destroyed." And this is the wrath Paul was referring to. But, when he wrote, just after this, "..for where no law is, there is no transgression," this is the circumvention I'm referring to.

As the law of circumcision was fulfilled in and by our anointed Savior, this opened a passageway for all people. So, now, even if a person wasn't circumcised, they could still enter into the new covenant of sacrifice because, all in all, the literal letter of the stipulation became null and void. If we can remember, the penalty of death was also fulfilled in and by our anointed Savior. But, now, all that was necessary was faith in what was accomplished on the cross. And in this sense, our faith is placed on the fact that through the shed blood of our anointed Savior, that all peoples, nations, tongues, and what-have-you, can enter into a covenant with the most High without being circumcised. To circumcise our sons would prove a lack of faith in this, in other words. And this is why Paul warned, "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." The "whole law," here includes animal sacrifice, all the precepts of the Sabbaths, the curses of the law, and pretty much all that's instructed under the authority of the Levitical, ceremonial laws.

In conclusion, Paul wasn't referring to the whole law in verses 14 through 16 of Romans 4. Paul was referring only to the law of circumcision.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#483863 Feb 3, 2013
LOL

Goodnight Icon Fairy

It is easier than a response on merit

:)
All My Tea

Statesville, NC

#483864 Feb 3, 2013
I made it.

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#483865 Feb 4, 2013
Good Morning Everyone... can't post for too long as I will be headed to the gym shortly.

I didn't watch the game last night but heard it was "purty" good! Uh... Catch!? smile.

:)

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#483866 Feb 4, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Ya fergot ta mention that SM was most likely Peter, and the 1st pope.
Ahoy Capn'... actually Peter rebuked SM (Simon Magus) in the book of Acts 8:18-20.

A pair different band 'o mateys

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#483867 Feb 4, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which team do you think god favors in the Super Bowl?
San Francisco, or Baltimore?
I ask because, very often following a game, players on the winning team thank god for the victory.
Best prayer wins? smile. Nah, just a simple giving of thanks for the win. It's a game of chance and "best team wins" all rolled up in one imho. The losing team should give thanks and be grateful as well... I mean, they still are millionaires, have nice cars and trophy wives, right?

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#483868 Feb 4, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
If it is honorable to "believe" without evidence, then one may believe themselves in perfect harmony with the god, and yet remain honorable. If another who professes "belief" disagrees with any (small) portion, then they are not a true believer
that is why Patty speaks for god, is consort to Jesus, and if you doubt that, then you are not a true christian.
Who is Patty?

“~ Prince of Peace~”

Since: Apr 08

~ And the greatest is LOVE~

#483869 Feb 4, 2013
Mornin.....Remember....It could be a Blessin...or a Lesson...

:-)

“Man improves himself as he follows his path; if he stands still, waiting to improve before he makes a decision, he’ll never move.”

~ Paulo Coelho

Thought For The Day

“The who whating how...”

Since: Dec 12

"...with huh?"

#483870 Feb 4, 2013
kjro wrote:
How could you seek love for a man who does not love? A man with no compassion but only vengeance. A man who fails to care and understand but segregates and dictates.

That is what I fail to understand. The blind concept of religion. Of god and Jesus.

You say rapture yet close your doors on those who are kind at heart, honest and good solely on the grounds that they do not belief in your religion. How medieval are your practices? How blinded are your eyes?
I don't close my door on anyone because of beliefs.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 min Porkpie Hat 268,953
Gay sex in Doha - need hot men (Sep '13) 26 min Kumar 13
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 40 min okimar 53,314
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Good-Evil 810,056
Gay sex in kanpur 1 hr Nic 2
sex (May '13) 1 hr ajay 95
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 2 hr viky235 164
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr hojo 574,204
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 11 hr Coolsa 205
More from around the web