Sin of yesterday or not...

[Blazin Bones]

You are right Quath, when the endcomes, there will be need need for a judge. God will have judge the sinners for those who accepted Christ, and those who denied him(it was fun while it lasted, right Quath?). Then there will be no more judgement. I guess you missed that part of the Bible.

I was talking about judgement for crimes, not for spiritual matters. I think you knew that.

And I was speaking to both.

[quote:0a8bc]Show me the Passage that God said an adulterous woman must be killed, and I'll respond to your point.

Leviticus 20:10 [/quote:0a8bc]

Good. Now look at what Christ said in Matthew 28:18. Christ was given the Authority over earth. Therefore, when he chose to forgive the adultress, he did so under the Authority of God, because God(himself)gave him permission to do so.

[quote:0a8bc]Okay, since painting your eyes is along the same line as make up, I'll respond to that portion. I don't see anywhere in 2 Kings 9:30 that mentions anything about seduction. I've gone through Five translations that don't mention this at all.

As for jeans, no passage, no response.

In the 2 Kings passage, Jezebel was a whore getting ready for seduction by painting her face.

I gave a passage for the jeans: Deuteronomy 22:5. The Pentecostal determine that jeans are men's clothes.[/quote:0a8bc]

1. Prove it with the passge you quote earlier.

2. Psalm 118:8, still waiting for you or any pentacostal to show me where it says Jeans.

[quote:0a8bc]1. No, because Christ instructed his followers to support the laws of the Government as long as they do not violate his teachings. However, if someone were to propose a law that would outlaw a sin, that is a law a Christian could support. Such as making homosexual unions illegal. If the law we're to do the opposite, then I would not support the Law because it violates the teachings of Christ.

2. It's not just his Vision that explains the change. Acts 10:34-35

1. So who can pass judgement on the people that break the law? For they are all guilty of sin. Either people can judge one another or they can't. You seem to want both.

2. The change was still not about shrimp.[/quote:0a8bc]

1. No I'm saying you need to make a difference between what Christians stand for, and what non-christians stand for.

2. Read the Verses again. Peter explains that God accepts those who Fear Him, shrimp eating or not. The thing against Shrimp was given to Jews, not to Gentiles. The Bible clearly teaches that the heart comes first, then the actions. Show me where God or Christ told Gentiles they could not Eat shrimp?

[quote:0a8bc]Incorrect. You logic is clearly flawed. A past event can not be undone by a future event. Please try to explain your point with correct logic.

God gave a commandment: kill homosexuals. You read this as "Homosexuality is bad. Punishment is to kill them." And you think that Jesus died to remove the punishment while keeping the first part. But that is not what is in the Bible. In the Bible, God just says to kill homosexuals. If you remove "kill homosexuals", then God has no commandment about homosexuals. Therefore, you can't say what God wants.[/quote:0a8bc]

Sure I can, Christ never said the acts were not sins, why else would he have forgiven the girl?

[quote:0a8bc]Incorrect, Jewish law claimed that you must kill homosexuals. There is a rule, and it's a Golden one. Love them as myself. If I love my slef enough to do things that will stop me from sinning, then I should do the same for Homosexuals.

The OT had the rule: Leviticus 19:18, which was to love your neighbor as yourself. But it also had the rule that you had to kill your neighbor if they were gay, talked back to their parents or if a girl had premaritial sex. So by the OT standards, you can kill the people you love.

It is just how you want to interpret the Bible.

Quath[/quote:0a8bc]

No it's not. Christ said anyone without sin may cast a stone. As I said before, though, Christ set a new standard, when he forgave her. Hence New Covenant. It is just how you correctly interpret the Bible.

 

[Homeskillet]

To me, homosexuality is not a sin...homosexual behaviour is.

It may be just semantics to some, but it's important to differentiate between the two concepts in my opinion. It's for this reason I have a hard time voting in this poll.

 

[antitox]

Reading these insane defenses of homo lifestyle, I can say that ultimately what you approve of you will have to answer for.

I cannot believe what I read when someone (who's supposed to be a Christian) defends advocating laws to sanction immoral behavior. That's what was done with abortion, and look how much of it now takes place. Any Christian who casts a willing vote for these things is propagating and endorsing evil. Sad......and bad.

 

[bibleberean]

Reading these insane defenses of homo lifestyle, I can say that ultimately what you approve of you will have to answer for.

I cannot believe what I read when someone (who's supposed to be a Christian) defends advocating laws to sanction immoral behavior. That's what was done with abortion, and look how much of it now takes place. Any Christian who casts a willing vote for these things is propagating and endorsing evil. Sad......and bad.

Amen! :D

 

[cubedbee]

Bull! Your post has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic anyway.

I'm sorry the connection is too difficult for you to understand. I'll try to keep things simpler in the future so I don't lose people.

We might as well let people walk around nude or have sex in public if we use your asinine logic.

No, that's your asinine logic that your using. Laws exixst to keep order in a society comprised of millions of individuals with diferring motivations/desires/morals. It makes logical sense, to this end, that laws regarding public behavior would be more restrictive than laws governing private behavior. Both these actions should be, and are, legal in private. Neither should be, or are, legal in public.

Homosexuality is a sin today just as it was then and it will always be a sin.

Correct, if you're suing homosexuality to mean the behavior, not the preference.

This thread has nothing to do with allowing degenerate perverts have the "right" to marry. :roll:

I know of some excellent adult reading programs if you want to try to increase your reading comprehension abilities. This thread is about how Christians should view and behave towards homosexuals, which definitely includes the discussion on "allowing degenerate perverts the right to marry"

 

[cubedbee]

I cannot believe what I read when someone (who's supposed to be a Christian) defends advocating laws to sanction immoral behavior. That's what was done with abortion, and look how much of it now takes place. Any Christian who casts a willing vote for these things is propagating and endorsing evil. Sad......and bad.[/color]

So then, you agree that our nation was founded by Christians who endorsed and propogated evil, and that the very foundation of our country is thus rotten?

 

[bibleberean]

I have a good book for "how to deal with Homosexuals" also...

It is called the bible...

Ever heard of it?

 

[cubedbee]

I have a good book for "how to deal with Homosexuals" also...

It is called the bible...

Ever heard of it?

Yes, I use it often. I find commands for stoning them (in Israel), and kicking them out of the church. I'm having trouble finding the passsage where it says that Christians have to oppose government benefits for them. Can you help me out?

 

[bibleberean]

I have a good book for "how to deal with Homosexuals" also...

It is called the bible...

Ever heard of it?

Yes, I use it often. I find commands for stoning them (in Israel), and kicking them out of the church. I'm having trouble finding the passsage where it says that Christians have to oppose government benefits for them. Can you help me out?

I think you are beyond any help I could give you...
;-)

 

[cubedbee]

I have a good book for "how to deal with Homosexuals" also...

It is called the bible...

Ever heard of it?

Yes, I use it often. I find commands for stoning them (in Israel), and kicking them out of the church. I'm having trouble finding the passsage where it says that Christians have to oppose government benefits for them. Can you help me out?

I think you are beyond any help I could give you...
;-)

Translation: I know there is no such passage, so I'm just going to make a smart comment to try to discredit you.

 

[Quath]

Good. Now look at what Christ said in Matthew 28:18. Christ was given the Authority over earth. Therefore, when he chose to forgive the adultress, he did so under the Authority of God, because God(himself)gave him permission to do so.

That was after the resurrection, not before it when the OT laws were still in place.

1. Prove it with the passge you quote earlier.

2. Psalm 118:8, still waiting for you or any pentacostal to show me where it says Jeans.

I have no idea why you are not following the logic of this. I will try to break it down some.
1.a. 2 Kings said that Jezebel painted her face to seduce a man.
1.b Pentecostal conclude that face painting (makeup) is Biblically something used for seduction.
1.c A woman should not be seductive, therefore she should not paint her face.

2.a Deuteronomy 22:5 says for a woman not to dress as a man.
2.b The Pentecostals see jeans as men's clothing.
2.c Therefore women should not wear jeans.

You may disagree with some of this stuff,but they feel with the guidance of the Holy Ghost that they are right. I could argue about inconsistencies in this as well, but I feel the Bible is full of inconsistencies. Just some Christians ignore some and believe others.

1. No I'm saying you need to make a difference between what Christians stand for, and what non-christians stand for.

2. Read the Verses again. Peter explains that God accepts those who Fear Him, shrimp eating or not. The thing against Shrimp was given to Jews, not to Gentiles. The Bible clearly teaches that the heart comes first, then the actions. Show me where God or Christ told Gentiles they could not Eat shrimp?

1. I am not sure I follow you. If non-christians were against adultry, then should a woman be found guilty of adultry in court today?

2. By the same logic, the homosexuality rules from the OT were given to the Jews, not Gentiles, so they may practice it. What you show is that homosexuality should be allowed just like shrimp eating should be allowed. (At the very least, you can not use the OT to justify that homosexuality is not ok.)

Sure I can, Christ never said the acts were not sins, why else would he have forgiven the girl?

I think you missed what I was saying. God commanded such people be killed. He did not command them not to do it. (Though people not wanting to be killed would avoid it.)

No it's not. Christ said anyone without sin may cast a stone. As I said before, though, Christ set a new standard, when he forgave her. Hence New Covenant. It is just how you correctly interpret the Bible.

At the time, Christ was still under the OT laws, so He was just committing blasphemy. According to the OT, such a teacher is a false prophet. Now I know that is not something you want to believe, so I am sure you will rationalize it away. But if you want to be consistent, the Bible is wrong somewhere because the story is contradictory to the rest of the Bible.

Quath

 

[bibleberean]

Christ had not fulfilled the law when the woman was caught in adultery.

John 8:3-11

Jesus is not contradicting the law in these passages. He is not saying the law is wrong or was wrong. He simply told the Jews that any of them who were free from sin could cast the first stone.

Also, the Romans had taken away the right of Jews to enforce their laws using the death penalty. The intent of these Jews was to trap Christ into a position where He was either against the law of Moses or breaking the law of the Romans.

And another thing. Christians have the same right to vote their conscience as anyone else.

There is no authority but of God. Romans 13:1

Christians and non-Christians have the right to vote their conscience in this nation. They have been given that right by God.

A Christian should not vote to legalize polygamy, walking around nude in public, having sexual relations in public and certainly not marriage between two perverts.

Those who promote the idea that we have no right to vote our conscience and should not stand in the way of these things are degenerates themselves.

They have forgotten the example of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

It would not be very loving or compassionate to promote the very things God is going to destroy the nations for practicing.

The one thing I have learned from these threads about pseudo Christians is that they are very clever like their father.

They spend their time trying to discredit the bible and promote their slimy agenda.

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

God holds the earthly powers that be accountable for what they do. He has destroyed entire nations for the sins that the slime ridden liberal snakes of today promote and condone.

Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

Here are a few scriptures that should be clear enough about sin and God's punishment and or forgiveness of the sins of the nations.

Jeremiah 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

Jeremiah 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

I would be the lowest form of life if I supported "marriage rights" for homosexuals and did not stand against it...

As far as many of the atheists on this board are concerned. Most of them are here for one reason. To cast dispersions on our God and mock His word.

You disgust me.

This is the truth.

Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man swath, that shall he also reap.

To the rare atheist who may be searching for truth and has legitimate questions and may truly be seeking God. Welcome... :D

You are not really an atheist. There is no such thing as a true atheist. They are just fools who have lied in their hearts and said that there is no God.

Psalms 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

 

[antitox]

I cannot believe what I read when someone (who's supposed to be a Christian) defends advocating laws to sanction immoral behavior. That's what was done with abortion, and look how much of it now takes place. Any Christian who casts a willing vote for these things is propagating and endorsing evil. Sad......and bad.[/color]

So then, you agree that our nation was founded by Christians who endorsed and propogated evil, and that the very foundation of our country is thus rotten?

Where in the world you get that is beyond me. If you actually read what I said, you might realize that I used the word "sanction." The government is not to sanction immoral behavior. Now don't start acting like Quath who glosses over what I say.

 

[cubedbee]

And another thing. Christians have the same right to vote their conscience as anyone else.

There is no authority but of God. Romans 13:1

Christians and non-Christians have the right to vote their conscience in this nation. They have been given that right by God.

This is all correct.

A Christian should not vote to legalize polygamy, walking around nude in public, having sexual relations in public and certainly not marriage between two perverts.

Why shouldn't they vote to legalize these activities? That's the question I have repeatedly ask you, and you can't do any better than "because they are sins." Well, it's simply false that Christians should not vote to legalize any sin. There are some sins which most Christians support being legal(worshiping false Gods), and there are other sins that most support being illegal(murder).

Those who promote the idea that we have no right to vote our conscience and should not stand in the way of these things are degenerates themselves.

You have the right to vote your conscience. And I have the right to vote mine. My Christian concience tells me that it is right to vote for freedoms and rights for certain sinners, because you cannot stop sin through law, and our country is founded on the principle of freedom. I

They have forgotten the example of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Nope, haven't forgotten it--you remind us constantly. Just not relevant to a Christian's decision on how to vote.

 

[Quath]

Christ had not fulfilled the law when the woman was caught in adultery.

John 8:3-11

Jesus is not contradicting the law in these passages. He is not saying the law is wrong or was wrong. He simply told the Jews that any of them who were free from sin could cast the first stone.

You are saying that Jesus changed the law from "Kill an adultrous woman" to "only sinless people may kill adultrous women." God never had the requirement that sinless people had to be the executioner, so this is a change.

Also God's laws were perfect (Psa 19:7) and eternal (Psa 119:160) so it shouldn't matter if it was a trap. If they are perfect laws, then Jesus should have followed them and not taught people different laws.

Quath

 

[cubedbee]

I cannot believe what I read when someone (who's supposed to be a Christian) defends advocating laws to sanction immoral behavior. That's what was done with abortion, and look how much of it now takes place. Any Christian who casts a willing vote for these things is propagating and endorsing evil. Sad......and bad.[/color]

So then, you agree that our nation was founded by Christians who endorsed and propogated evil, and that the very foundation of our country is thus rotten?

Where in the world you get that is beyond me. If you actually read what I said, you might realize that I used the word "sanction." The government is not to sanction immoral behavior. Now don't start acting like Quath who glosses over what I say.

What do you think the word sanction means? I think it means "To give official authorization or approval to" like my dictionary says.

If you agree with my definition, then you should agree that the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is clearly sanctioning (giving official authorization) the sin of idolatry.

So, that led me directly to the conclusion that our founding fathers sanctioned immoral behavior.

Hence, it appears that the words you wrote, when intepreted with a standard dictionary, imply that our founding fathers, who sanctioned immoral activities, were propagating and endorsing evil.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Good. Now look at what Christ said in Matthew 28:18. Christ was given the Authority over earth. Therefore, when he chose to forgive the adultress, he did so under the Authority of God, because God(himself)gave him permission to do so.

That was after the resurrection, not before it when the OT laws were still in place.

Incorrect. Show me where Matthew 28:18 says when the Authority was given.

[quote:a458f]1. Prove it with the passge you quote earlier.

2. Psalm 118:8, still waiting for you or any pentacostal to show me where it says Jeans.

I have no idea why you are not following the logic of this. I will try to break it down some.
1.a. 2 Kings said that Jezebel painted her face to seduce a man.
1.b Pentecostal conclude that face painting (makeup) is Biblically something used for seduction.
1.c A woman should not be seductive, therefore she should not paint her face.

2.a Deuteronomy 22:5 says for a woman not to dress as a man.
2.b The Pentecostals see jeans as men's clothing.
2.c Therefore women should not wear jeans.

You may disagree with some of this stuff,but they feel with the guidance of the Holy Ghost that they are right. I could argue about inconsistencies in this as well, but I feel the Bible is full of inconsistencies. Just some Christians ignore some and believe others.[/quote:a458f]

I'm not following this logic because this logic is flawed.

1. You said 2 Kings 9:30, says she painted her face to be seductive. Prove it with that passage, and I'll continue.

2. I'm still waiting for a passage that says jeans are men clothing, or even mentions the word jeans.

Quath, feel free to use the same logic I am when a pentacostal tells you this. Tell them to prove their point with scripture.

[quote:a458f]1. No I'm saying you need to make a difference between what Christians stand for, and what non-christians stand for.

2. Read the Verses again. Peter explains that God accepts those who Fear Him, shrimp eating or not. The thing against Shrimp was given to Jews, not to Gentiles. The Bible clearly teaches that the heart comes first, then the actions. Show me where God or Christ told Gentiles they could not Eat shrimp?

1. I am not sure I follow you. If non-christians were against adultry, then should a woman be found guilty of adultry in court today?

2. By the same logic, the homosexuality rules from the OT were given to the Jews, not Gentiles, so they may practice it. What you show is that homosexuality should be allowed just like shrimp eating should be allowed. (At the very least, you can not use the OT to justify that homosexuality is not ok.)[/quote:a458f]

1.If that's what their law says, yes.

2.Incorrect. Let's use the KJV as an example, because a less literal translation doesn't shed the same light.(Berean, that was for you. :wink: ) In Leviticus 11:12 it says eating of finless or scaleless sea life "shall be an abomination unto You." This differs from what is written in Leviticus 18:22 where it just says, "this is an abomination." The you in 11:12 implies that God was speaking directly to the nation of Israel(Moses the representative). As God's chosen people, this was part of the deal. In 18:22 there in no word directing this law to a specific group. Therefore, one "sin" was just something that Jews, being God's chosen people could break. The other is general, and applies to all mankind.

[quote:a458f]Sure I can, Christ never said the acts were not sins, why else would he have forgiven the girl?

I think you missed what I was saying. God commanded such people be killed. He did not command them not to do it. (Though people not wanting to be killed would avoid it.)[/quote:a458f]

Well, You missed what I said the first time. We do have a rule with which to follow. and It's golden.

[quote:a458f] No it's not. Christ said anyone without sin may cast a stone. As I said before, though, Christ set a new standard, when he forgave her. Hence New Covenant. It is just how you correctly interpret the Bible.

At the time, Christ was still under the OT laws, so He was just committing blasphemy. According to the OT, such a teacher is a false prophet. Now I know that is not something you want to believe, so I am sure you will rationalize it away. But if you want to be consistent, the Bible is wrong somewhere because the story is contradictory to the rest of the Bible.

Quath[/quote:a458f]

It's only a contradiction if you don't recognize that Christ was God. Christ did not tell them they could not stone her, but he did ask that the one who is pure to throw the first stone. The pharisees had no one pure amongst them, so they could not stone her.

Then Christ, forgave her, because as God he could. Then, later on the cross, he took the punishment this girl, and everyone one of us from adam to now have deserved. Quath, until you accept that Christ is God, you won't understnad the idea. For you, you don't even believe God is God, so good luck with trying to understand him.

 

[Drew]

I think cubedbee's general argument is quite strong. I am not specifically saying where I stand on the topic - I am not really sure. However, I am interested in the form of the argument.

Taking B3's argument as a point of departure, I would ask the following question: On what specific basis (i.e according to what meaningul criteria) do we divide sins into 2 disitinct categories:

1. Those that should be made illegal.
2. Those that should be legal.

Presumably we all agree idolatry is a sin, right? I suspect we all agree that idolatry should not be outlawed. Presumably we all agree that murder is a sin, right. Presumably we all agree that murder should be outlawed.

There must be some basis for categorizing sins this way. What is it, exactly?

 

[Quath]

Incorrect. Show me where Matthew 28:18 says when the Authority was given.

Jesus says this after he was resurrected. Before he died, he in Matthew 5:17-20 that the law was still in effect and nothing would change in it. He says "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." So it would be hypocritical for him to start changing these perfect and eternal commands.

I'm not following this logic because this logic is flawed.

1. You said 2 Kings 9:30, says she painted her face to be seductive. Prove it with that passage, and I'll continue.

2. I'm still waiting for a passage that says jeans are men clothing, or even mentions the word jeans.

Quath, feel free to use the same logic I am when a pentacostal tells you this. Tell them to prove their point with scripture.

1. She was a fornicater so she is associated with seduction.

2. Jeans have in recent history been associated with men while dresses and skirts were associated with women. Men and women could not wear the same clothes by this belief, so the jeans went to the men and the skirts went to the women.

I agree it seems easy to show it makes no sense. I could show that historically, that women did wear jeans and that this passage may refer to pagan rituals or living as a transvestite. Yet they just say that by faith and the Holy Spirit guiding them, they know they have interpreted it tuthfully.

1.If that's what their law says, yes.

2.Incorrect. Let's use the KJV as an example, because a less literal translation doesn't shed the same light.(Berean, that was for you. :wink: ) In Leviticus 11:12 it says eating of finless or scaleless sea life "shall be an abomination unto You." This differs from what is written in Leviticus 18:22 where it just says, "this is an abomination." The you in 11:12 implies that God was speaking directly to the nation of Israel(Moses the representative). As God's chosen people, this was part of the deal. In 18:22 there in no word directing this law to a specific group. Therefore, one "sin" was just something that Jews, being God's chosen people could break. The other is general, and applies to all mankind.

1. So this would be sinful people casting stones (making judgement). Can he who is with sin cast judgement?

2. Lev 18:1 says "The LORD said to Moses" so the "you" is not needed since He was addressing the leader of the tribe.

Well, You missed what I said the first time. We do have a rule with which to follow. and It's golden.

So by this golden rule, can you kill your neighbor's daughter for premaritial sex? If you can't, then the OT laws did not follow the Golden Rule and Jesus could not have reduced them down to it.

It's only a contradiction if you don't recognize that Christ was God. Christ did not tell them they could not stone her, but he did ask that the one who is pure to throw the first stone. The pharisees had no one pure amongst them, so they could not stone her.

Then Christ, forgave her, because as God he could. Then, later on the cross, he took the punishment this girl, and everyone one of us from adam to now have deserved. Quath, until you accept that Christ is God, you won't understnad the idea. For you, you don't even believe God is God, so good luck with trying to understand him.

Jesus should have stoned her then to follow God's law. But by forgiving her before he had fulfilled the law, he sinned.

If Jesus could forgive the laws before his death, then he did not need to die at all. He could just say all was forgiven.

I am just looking at this as a story and seeing if it makes sense. If I believed the OT, then I would have to conclude that Jesus was a false messiah and God warned people of them. (Of course, I would not want to worship God either from the OT since He is too bloodthirsty for my taste.)

Quath

 

[Homeskillet]

To me, homosexuality is not a sin...homosexual behaviour is.

It may be just semantics to some, but it's important to differentiate between the two concepts in my opinion. It's for this reason I have a hard time voting in this poll.

I think I should clarify my position a little better.

The first definition of homosexuality according to Websters is "the quality or state of being homosexual"

There's nothing sinful about a person being homosexual.

The second defition of homosexuality (same source) is "erotic activity with another of the same sex"

Which is absolutely a sin.

There is a difference between the two concepts, and that is what I was trying to say and failed in my first post.

In Christ,
Josie