I don't understand why homosexuals have to twist the bible into saying its OK to be gay (scrutiny, missionary)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by pcamps

To the spiritually minded repentance is turning to God, to the sin conscious carnal minds repentance is turning from sin. What we are looking at makes all the difference.
The spiritually minded person points you to God, the carnal minded points you to sin.
Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else
beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as from the Lord, the Spirit

Preach it, brother!!!

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by nateswift

You say that Jesus did not come to abolish th Law, but to fulfill it. Fine, now add that th Law and prophets is fulfilled in the two greatest commandments. The basis of the New Covenant is that concern for the well being of everyone that should be the guide for conduct. "Sin" is nothing more than people missing that mark.

Amen. concise and to the point! Too bad they think we are to be God's enforcers pointing out and condemning everyone's sins instead of loving God and each other. We will be held accountable for all the hurt and harm we inflict on others for ANY reason, even if we THINK we are doing it to please God! How they have twisted it so far from Christ's original intent is beyond me.

Originally Posted by twin.spin

“If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them." ~ Jesus [/i]Luke 17:3
[/indent]

Jesus came to rebuke those who were misrepresenting and misguiding others ABOUT God. He has the authority to rebuke in God's name. You are NOT Jesus, so you do NOT have any authority to rebuke in God's name. That is NOT your job. Rebuke yourself when you sin. However, pointing out when others are sinning AGAINST YOU DOES help them to learn what is truly a sin. That kind of rebuke is helpful, but NOT the kind you fundies heap upon Gays, Twin. What are they doing AGAINST YOU that deserves rebuke????

[303Guy]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Amen. concise and to the point! Too bad they think we are to be God's enforcers pointing out and condemning everyone's sins instead of loving God and each other. We will be held accountable for all the hurt and harm we inflict on others for ANY reason, even if we THINK we are doing it to please God! How they have twisted it so far from Christ's original intent is beyond me.
Jesus came to rebuke those who were misrepresenting and misguiding others ABOUT God. He has the authority to rebuke in God's name. You are NOT Jesus, so you do NOT have any authority to rebuke in God's name. That is NOT your job. Rebuke yourself when you sin. However, pointing out when others are sinning AGAINST YOU DOES help them to learn what is truly a sin. That kind of rebuke is helpful, but NOT the kind you fundies heap upon Gays, Twin. What are they doing AGAINST YOU that deserves rebuke????

Good post! And not just the part I bolded.

[twin.spin]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Amen. concise and to the point! Too bad they think we are to be God's enforcers pointing out and condemning everyone's sins instead of loving God and each other. We will be held accountable for all the hurt and harm we inflict on others for ANY reason, even if we THINK we are doing it to please God! How they have twisted it so far from Christ's original intent is beyond me.

Jesus came to rebuke those who were misrepresenting and misguiding others ABOUT God. He has the authority to rebuke in God's name. You are NOT Jesus, so you do NOT have any authority to rebuke in God's name. That is NOT your job. Rebuke yourself when you sin. However, pointing out when others are sinning AGAINST YOU DOES help them to learn what is truly a sin. That kind of rebuke is helpful, but NOT the kind you fundies heap upon Gays, Twin. What are they doing AGAINST YOU that deserves rebuke????

You ought to tell that perverted spirit embryo that barbaric voodoo is easily identifiable.

The truth is:
Jesus commands all disciples to make disciples of all nations ...
Jesus did not send his disciples with the message: If you love others, stay silent and only concern yourself with yourself
Jesus did not define love as being tolerant irrespective of behavior whether or not it directly impacts you personally

Jesus does give authorization to his disciples to speak in his name since he is God:

“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me;
but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me. ..

I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and
to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you."

It's through the authority of Jesus (which we share in) that the barbaric voodoo message of perverted spirit embryos has been trampled on and will never see victory.

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by Chanokh

<snip>

2 Timothy 3:13-17 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

It raises questions. What scripture are the authors referring to in these letters? The Torah and Tanakh? The letters they are writing at that moment? That doesn't make any sense. The writings that in the future will become the biblical canon? Other writings that were in circulation then but no longer exist now?

<snip>

At the time 2 Timothy was written, the only documents any of the people in the audience would have recognized as "scripture" were the Jewish Torah and Tanakh. The New Testament was a few hundred years away. If you think the New Testament was included, then you have to justify why you don't include any of the other writings that were used at that time that did not make the cut when the New Testament contents were up for a vote.

[Chanokh]

Originally Posted by mensaguy

At the time 2 Timothy was written, the only documents any of the people in the audience would have recognized as "scripture" were the Jewish Torah and Tanakh. The New Testament was a few hundred years away. If you think the New Testament was included, then you have to justify why you don't include any of the other writings that were used at that time that did not make the cut when the New Testament contents were up for a vote.

I believe that Paul was referring to the Tanakh as being the Scriptures, though not exclusively, it just were the only Scriptures at that time. But it's easy to identify the authenticity and authority by comparing Scripture with Scripture. If the OT was given by inspiration of God and not of private interpretation, thats a good reference point to test the NT by. And the NT does not contradict the OT, it's clearly fulfilling prophecy on so many different levels, and is written with the same authority and, though by different authors, clearly by the same Spirit of God.

Also I believe it was never upto humans to decide which books would be canonized, God is in full control of His Own Word. Just like He was in full control when Jesus was crucified, though you might think Pilate was in control, or the Jewish leaders or Judas. You might wonder why Jesus wasn't stoned, like Stephen? Wouldn't that have been much easier? But the prophecy that cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree had to be fulfilled. God made Jesus Christ a curse for us, so we could be freed from the curse of Gods Holy Law. Just as other prophecies were fulfilled in the death of Christ, it was was God leading the events.

Deutoronomy 21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

So was Pilate in control of the events? Perhaps on the surface, but no, God was in control. Were the people "deciding" the canon of the Bible in control? No, again, perhaps on the surface, but God was in control of His Own Word.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Chanokh

The rebuke was they lost their first love? Do you just see what you want to see or what? For one of the Churches, one of the most faithful ones, the only rebuke was they lost their first love. But look at the Church of Laodicea, or the Church at Sardis. Rev. 3:1b I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

If anything you have shown you refuse to read. I've shown you plenthy of examples Christ rebuking people other than the pharisees, but you just don't read it. Or you start to redefine what rebuking or repentance is. If you tell someone in general to repent, that's a mild rebuke of their sin they need to turn away from. And that is what Christ preached.

Mark 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Dictionary.com defines repent as following..

1. to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc. (often followed by of): He repented after his thoughtless act.
2. to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent.

So Jesus is in general preaching to all Galileans they should feel sorry for their sin, past conduct, whatever you wanna name it. And believe the Gospel.

Dictionary.com on rebuke..

verb (used with object), rebuked, rebuking. 1. to express sharp, stern disapproval of; reprove; reprimand. noun
2. sharp, stern disapproval; reproof; reprimand.

Jesus clearly disapproves of sin, otherwise why would He tell them they should feel sorry for their sin? If their only problem is unbelief, why does He start to say repent ye? And only after and believe the Gospel? Couldnt He just have said, believe the Gospel, and leave out the repent part? After all its not like He is talking to the pharisees right, He is talking to the general population of Galilee, they sure mustve felth offended.

All that rebuking in Revelations? Who was it directed toward? Once again it was toward "bible-believers," not atheists or Muslims or gays. Just churches thinking they had it right.

If you cannot see what is in your own heart it's because the Holy Spirit isn't there to convict you and give you empathy for those you see as "others."

You think Christianity is about righteousness. But what it is really about is relationships. When we boil all our beliefs down, none of them matter nearly as much as our relationships to those around us. Both the happiest and darkest moments in our lives revolve around relationships. Getting fired from a job is tough. Being handed divorce papers is exponentially worse.

So perhaps you want no relationship with a homosexual. He or she is an It to you, as Jewish philosopher Martin Buber points out. And as a Jew he spent a lot of time reading about Jesus. He boiled all relationships into two categories, I---It and I---Thou. For him, Jesus was the epitome of I---Thou relationships. He treated people as He wished to be treated.

But I---It people, of which there are quite a few among the Jewish religion, see themselves as the capital I and others as "it's." An It doesn't measure up to the "I" who doesn't think the "It" deserves the same things that the "I's" expect for themselves.

Jesus clearly despised Pharisees no matter what you think about how He thought about sin. He called no other person or group "vipers" or "whited sepulchers full of dead men's bones. Because their relationships were all
I---It, and He constantly and consistently rebuked (look that up in the dictionary again) those kinds of people.

Yet He treated others as I---Thou, respecting them when the written word said He should not. Eating and drinking with them when the written word said He should not. Showing love and acceptance to the thief on the cross, treating him as a Thou not an It.

Not until those homosexuals are an I---Thou, can you tell anybody you are a Christian. I-----Thou means you don't deny them wedding cakes because of YOUR beliefs. I----Thou means you don't compare them to pedophiles or partakers in bestiality, like your brother jeffbase40. I----Thou means sitting down at the table with those homosexuals and laughing, drinking, eating like Jesus did with, in your language, "regular" sinners.
I--- It says those people's feelings are not as important as mine when selling them a wedding cake, seeing them walk up he steps to my church, or when law says I have to hand them a wedding license.

I---It people are selfish at heart and always looking out for themselves. I---Thou people take acceptance of others as equals as utmost importance even if that means They themselves are uncomfortable.

You might get Buber's book I--Thou and read it. I warn you that unless you read it much more carefully than you do Scripture, it won't mean anything. Some of his concepts are difficult to grasp in a single reading.

But why not give it a shot. Unless a man's reach exceeds his grasp, what's a heaven for?

[nateswift]

And a +1 for the Browning quote too !

[Choir Loft]

Originally Posted by vicarjoe

The bible is clear on the subject. Its not OK to be gay. Being an Agnostic I really don't care, but I also do not try to twist the bible into saying what it does not. Its clear on many things, and you have to do a lot of pretzel twisting to make the bible OK with the homosexual life style. What I don't understand is why some homosexuals feel the need to reconcile the bible with their life style. ..../

It's called SIN.

Sin justifies itself - always.

So do gays. Their sin is so deep, in fact, that like the pharisees of Jesus' time they call for tolerance even as they practice it themselves against those who do not agree with them. Their sin is so deep that they refuse to admit to it. Instead they parade their licentiousness down our streets and boast in it. Intolerant to a fault, they demand continually that everyone else allow them to insinuate their filthy habits into our private lives and religion.

Gays are the most hypocritical group in the world today. Hypocritical religions could take lessons from them.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

[zthatzmanz28]

Originally Posted by Choir Loft

It's called SIN.

Sin justifies itself - always.

So do gays. Their sin is so deep, in fact, that like the pharisees of Jesus' time they call for tolerance even as they practice it themselves against those who do not agree with them. Their sin is so deep that they refuse to admit to it. Instead they parade their licentiousness down our streets and boast in it. Intolerant to a fault, they demand continually that everyone else allow them to insinuate their filthy habits into our private lives and religion.

Gays are the most hypocritical group in the world today. Hypocritical religions could take lessons from them.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

The bible is clear on the subject--LGBTQ are OK with God.





This is just me swigging from the MOONSHINE JESUS Gospel.