Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you were, as you claim, an SBC pastor, I'm glad you're no longer if you deny the substitutionary atonement. There's already too many bad theologians in the SBC.
Me, too. I don’t want to be a part of a hypocritical church. And I intend to study Scripture and alter my views whenever God gives me vision to see better than I do now.
Since you are dead certain that you already have the truth, there is no chance for you to discover anything new. No chance to grow. No chance to blossom into anything other than your stunted self.
Bad theologians are exactly what the SBC relied upon to reach a misguided penal substitution concept. They were mostly Catholic. And they couldn’t read the Bible either.
Quote:
Paul says frequently that Christ died “for us” (Rom 5: 8; Gal 3: 13; Eph 5: 2; 1 Thess 5: 10). This clearly has the sense of benefaction done in solidarity and love. But does it carry the sense of Christ dying instead of us? This interpretation is in fact ruled out because we are called to die “with Christ” (Rom 6: 4–5; Gal 2: 20; Col 2: 12). Paul writes that because Christ “died for all, therefore all died” (2 Cor 5: 14). This is not the idea of Christ dying instead of us, but rather of participation—Christ dies and so do we.
Derek Flood, Healing the Gospel, A Radical Vision for Grace, Justice, and the Cross
Your view of “justice” is “payback.” Mine, AND the Bible’s, is a leveling of the playing fields. Your view of salvation is “believing the right things.” Mine is “doing the same things Jesus did toward sinners, regardless of their beliefs.”
I couldn’t remain in the SBC because it rejected people Jesus loves. You can’t leave because you cannot accept those “sinners” as anywhere near your equal.
I have no problem whatsoever with a gay man or woman coming to my church and sitting next to me.
I'm sorry if you think that Jerry Falwell speaks for me.
You’ve previously stated that you would not sit in a church with a gay standing in the pulpit. In that respect you ARE Jerry Falwell, you big, open-hearted lover of sinners!
You’ve previously stated that you would not sit in a church with a gay standing in the pulpit. In that respect you ARE Jerry Falwell, you big, open-hearted lover of sinners!
I'd also not attend a church where an unrepentant adulterer preached. Would you?
I'd also not attend a church where an unrepentant adulterer preached. Would you?
Exactly. Unrepentant sin infects the church with the world.
Romans 12:1-2 Therefore, I urge you brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
That's a silly argument. We just pretend immoral activity is moral? That's like telling a Jew that he shouldn't let it bother him if he is asked to cater a Nazi rally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
But Jeff, don't you understand that orientation ALONE can not be destructive? It is ALWAYS the act that is destructive, not the orientation.
Whenever you go against God's plan and design, it is certainly destructive on spiritual level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
And of course we can claim the act is wrong, regardless of whether someone has committed it. It would be stupid to think otherwise. Consent plays a LARGE role in all of this, you just refuse to accept that. You can not say that it doesn't. Two consenting adult males/females having sex is certainly different than 1 adult and 1 child. Surely you can see this??? They are in no way comparable, and never will be, regardless of how many times you guys beat the drum.
Ok ,a grown sister and her brother both consent to have sexual relations. Perfectly fine using your rational, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
It is nothing more than an argument based out of ignorance, in an attempt to make your side look less ridiculous, while actually making your side look more ridiculous.
Let's go with a little example that actually has nothing to do with sexual orientation, just to make the point. Let's say you don't agree with sodas being sold to children. Instead of simply saying, "I don't agree with sodas being sold to children," you're saying, "Well, if we allow sodas to be sold to children, what's next? Are we going to start allowing them to drink the blood of newborn babies!?" One has nothing to do with the other.
If you bring down one moral barrier then the door is open to break down the next. And every argument to justify same sex orientation makes you hypocritical if you don't approve of all other kinds of orientation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
Of course it is. And I really hate to break this to your delicate little heart, but straight people **GASP** have unprotected sex all the time!!! I know, it's a huge shock to find out that it isn't just gay people! Sorry to be the one to break that to you.
Also, not having gay sex would not stop the disease. That's just dumb.
Spare me the theatrics. Of course, I know straight people engage in risky behavior, but guess what, straight people vastly outnumber gay people yet the STD stats vastly occur in the gay demographic. The logical conclusion is gay people have unsafe sex with multiple partners at much higher rate than heterosexuals.
I'd also not attend a church where an unrepentant adulterer preached. Would you?
Absolutely I would. I don’t see myself as better than any other sinner.
I bet my bottom dollar you have plenty of “unrepentant” adulterers in your church, too. If someone committed adultery and was divorced, then remarried to another, according to Scripture both are living in adultery continuously. This is why Jesus rejected the Law that was interpreted to mean only the physical act was adultery to state that in God’s eyes one has committed adultery by even lusting.
So yes, you probably have listened to unrepentant adulterers speak from your pulpit or in your Sunday School class. If they were repentant they would either return to the spouse they cheated on or remain single. Do you see how hypocritical your view is regarding “unrepentant” homosexuals. You’ve got a good 25% of your congregation who are practicing adulterers. But your mind dismisses the demands of Jesus by ASSUMING one can become an adulterer, pray for forgiveness, and then no longer be an adulterer.
For a guy who doesn’t care for theologians with alternate viewpoints, you remain steadfastly attached to an unbiblical view of adultery.
I'd also not attend a church where an unrepentant adulterer preached. Would you?
How about a church that has people who've had divorces or abortions?
Do you quiz everyone at church?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
