What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Should Homosexuals Adopt Children ?

affirming anoher poster's claim that a third poster has murderous inclinations
Click to expand...

And you want to say that I am claiming that Tan has murderous inclinations? Because I accept the Word of God and the Scriptures that were chosen by another MOD?

If the readers on this site will notice you 'bolded' what you wanted to make your own little scheme on things.

42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."
Click to expand...

IN GENERAL AS A WHOLE I AGREE WITH THESE SCRIPTURES.. I did not take any-one out of context nor did I say any sort of what you accused me of. You have taken a small portion of these Scriptures. And foolishly enough did not even quote the entire sentence, you bolded in the middle of another sentence and ended with the sentecnce you refer me to suggesting; you have broke it up to suit your needs to feel you are right, and to draw others into your schemes. Well guess what Drew, You are gonna to receive a warning for accusing me of the following:

affirming anoher poster's claim that a third poster has murderous inclinations
Click to expand...

No where did I say that; and you are openly trying to challange me. If you disagree with these Scriptures that is between you and your fellowship with Christ. This is your warning by me. I will check to see if you have others. It must be noted that 3 warnings could have you banned from this site.

I expect from this moment if you have any questions, you present them in PM. Any further dialog on this issue will cause another warning against your membership.

Case Closed:
-MOD-
-Atone
 
Atonement said:
But, in the meantime it was not a violation, but a very true statement. He is foolish to accept this if the Bible teaches otherwise. And Drew you yourself are defending that, this shows us the true DREW
Click to expand...
Please explain precisely how my objection to his being called a "yo-yo" demonstrates that I am defending his position.
 
Before I answer that Drew. Tell me what do I mean by yo-yo? Do you even know? Or are you just brain-storming your own idea?
 
Is it just me or are others on this forum beginning to ask questions that have nothing to do with the scriptures? People are being insulted here (in the name of God, no less!) and maligned while others are receiving threats and warnings for defending the DIGNITY of those so treated.

All I can say is that I am appalled by the disgraceful behavior of those who should know better. Something is happening here, the likes of which I haven't seen since I joined 123 Forums 18 months ago.
 
IMO, PotLuck seems to be more than capable of moderating his own section, and he doesn't create strife or call people names when he does it.
You lead by example and a title does not make a leader.
 
illogical.gif

I could not help but notice that the posts on the topic of this thread are few and far between.
 
Hello Atonement:

The following has been posted in the context of your apparent disagreement with kiwimac over the acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle into his (kiwimac's) church. I have added bolding to draw attention to a particular claim you make about me:
Atonement said:
I'm talking about the sin of homosexuality in to the Church? Calling this priest a foolish or "yo-yo" is point taken. Unless he can prove his point, then I will gladly apologize, and retract all my statements made to him here in public!!! But, in the meantime it was not a violation, but a very true statementHe is foolish to accept this if the Bible teaches otherwise. And Drew you yourself are defending that, this shows us the true DREW.. I guess you do not understand the term "yo-yo" which at this point in time I'm assuming is the case.
Click to expand...
Please provide a reference to any posts where I have claimed any of the following:

1. Homosexual behaviour is not sin.
2. Active homosexuals should be allowed to hold leadership positions in the church.
3. Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

Since you claim that I am defending something that kiwimac is supporting, please provide the words from any of my posts suggesting that I am defending the sin of homosexuality in the church.

Otherwise, please retract your claim.

Note that this post is entirely on topic - you have suggested that I defend a certain position in respect to the topic of this thread. Please substantiate your claim or withdraw it.
 
Moderators:

Am I allowed to respond to this? Note that I have been told "Any further dialog on this issue will cause another warning against your membership". If I am not to allowed to publically discuss this issue, neither should other posters. Please rule.
 
Will your reply serve to calm things down or fuel the fires of malcontent?
 
Drew
I just did edit my post. I oppologize to you. I was wrong in taking you out of context as I did.

I am not going to make any excuses for it..
For now I need to get to work...

See yall at lunch time.
 
PotLuck said:
Will your reply serve to calm things down or fuel the fires of malcontent?
Click to expand...
It probably would fuel the fires.

But, and with all due respect, that is not the only consideration here. Let me try to explain. I have been warned to not publically address a certain issue. This same restriction should apply to all posters. If people are permitted to make claims such as Oscar's that "I took Atonement out of context", I should be permitted to respond to such a claim. Or, better still, no poster (not just me) should be allowed to discuss the controversial exchange. That's all.

I have no desire to further divert this thread from its topic and I promise not to initiate any further public posts in this thread about the controversial exchange. If someone posts some accusation that is not factual, I should, naturally, be allowed to respond.

However, my post re my alleged defence of kiwimac's position is another story. It is clearly on topic and simply requests that a claim be justified about a position that I hold in respect to the subject of "homosexuality in the church".

My hat is off to jgredline for his recent post. I hope to follow his example as warranted.
 
Drew said:
This same restriction should apply to all posters. If people are permitted to make claims such as Oscar's that "I took Atonement out of context", I should be permitted to respond to such a claim. Or, better still, no poster (not just me) should be allowed to discuss the controversial exchange. That's all.
Click to expand...

I see no reason to continue the conflict after Atonment's post and that goes for ANY poster.

Atonement said:
Enough Guys!!! Let's stay focused on the subject shall we?
Click to expand...

You've made your case for your defense in a mature and calm fashion. Thank you for that. Much appreciated and I hope others can follow your example as well. If however you feel more is needed then please try using PMs to clear up the matter. Hopefully a positive result can be realized.

To All:
I'd prefer to stay on topic, making no insinuations or other inuendo for the sake of antagonizing another.
 
Good morning Drew, I understand what you are saying. This is why I told everyone enough already. I would ask that Potluck edit Oscar's post. I would if I could on here. I'm in full agreement that the post thereafter was not spiritual, did not edify nor did it show much love. Now about you defending kiwimac's stand on homosexuality. That was wrong of me to say and I apologize for getting caught up in the moment. It appears that I misread your post.

This thread has been hi-jacked enough.


Edited by Atonement
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top