Page 436 of 557 FirstFirst ... 336386426432433434435436437438439440446486536 ... LastLast
Results 6,526 to 6,540 of 8345
  1. #6526
    Fantastic Member Psimitar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    Yes all sin is equal in God's sight however do you want to know difference between Christians and regular sinners. Christians are still sinners that's why we still do wrong but God forgave them and took away His punishment from us. Regular sinners are still under his wrath and judgement. Psimitar does not just believe homosexuality is a sin it is explicitly stated in the Bible both Old and New Testament say this well.
    The problem most of us have about how we weigh sin is that we look at how that sin adversely affects those around us and the more it does, the "worse" that sin is. This is why everybody bristles when I equate homosexuality to pedophilia. Since homosexuality is viewed as something that is done as a consentual act while pedophilia is an act perpetuated on a helpless victim, we tend to look at pedophilia as more severe. But in reality, the problem with any and all sin is that is removes us from fellowship with God. David said it best in Psalms 51:4 when he said:

    Against you, you only, have I sinned
    and done what is evil in your sight;
    so you are right in your verdict
    and justified when you judge.

    So here David is talking about his adultery with Bathsheba. As far as humanity is concerned, David's sin had far-reaching ramifications. It affected Bathsheba, her husband Uriah (whom David had killed), David and Bathsheba's unborn child and potentially the rest of the kingdom of Israel as it was thrown into political upheaval from this event. But David isn't worried about any of that. His only concern is that he sinned against God. It is the repairing of that relationship that took ultimate prescedence in David's life. And this is why David is called a "man after God's own heart". Not because he was perfect. But because he acknowledged his sin, held himself accountable to his God and repented from that sin when confronted with it. He didn't make excuses. He didn't try to spin it to say "well it's not really a sin". He didn't try to say "well I was born this way, it's just who I am". He didn't try to say "well, that Law of Moses was written 400 years ago. Times have changed and the Law doesn't have the same cultural significance now". No, he confessed his sin, asked forgiveness from his God and repented of it immediately.

    So do I really think that all sin is equal? Yes, in as much is that all sin separates us from God.

  2. #6527
    The Detective Man The Dying Detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Look East
    Posts
    4,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalak View Post
    So by responding to David's post wishing that people could come together I was ordering you to forsake your God? That perfectly sums up how wrong this post is without me saying another thing, but since those unrepentant false christians making laws aren't you as shown here (Unless that's what the Hard Stare showed you) you seem to have deliberately misunderstood me in order to once again take the roll of victim against all reason. That's something the right over here does so often it's not even funny anymore.
    David wants us to let the unrepentant into God's house if we did the punishments listed in Revelations will befall more churches and you were practically asking us to do it. Yes they have voted for the wrong candidates and i am sorry for that however the alternative was to let the other one come in and let you all have your way unless a third party arises there was little else they could have done. Besides if Clinton got the vote she would have kept everything Obama implemented like his law stipulating that churches have to marry gay couples that Trump repealed a pen pal of mine from the West told me this. And besides I am a victim here I was cyber bullied on this very forum by user Assam http://community.comicbookresources....-if-so/page431.
    Last edited by The Dying Detective; 05-15-2018 at 12:07 PM.
    "Excellent!" I cried. "Elementary," said he

  3. #6528
    The Detective Man The Dying Detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Look East
    Posts
    4,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psimitar View Post
    The problem most of us have about how we weigh sin is that we look at how that sin adversely affects those around us and the more it does, the "worse" that sin is. This is why everybody bristles when I equate homosexuality to pedophilia. Since homosexuality is viewed as something that is done as a consentual act while pedophilia is an act perpetuated on a helpless victim, we tend to look at pedophilia as more severe. But in reality, the problem with any and all sin is that is removes us from fellowship with God. David said it best in Psalms 51:4 when he said:

    Against you, you only, have I sinned
    and done what is evil in your sight;
    so you are right in your verdict
    and justified when you judge.

    So here David is talking about his adultery with Bathsheba. As far as humanity is concerned, David's sin had far-reaching ramifications. It affected Bathsheba, her husband Uriah (whom David had killed), David and Bathsheba's unborn child and potentially the rest of the kingdom of Israel as it was thrown into political upheaval from this event. But David isn't worried about any of that. His only concern is that he sinned against God. It is the repairing of that relationship that took ultimate prescedence in David's life. And this is why David is called a "man after God's own heart". Not because he was perfect. But because he acknowledged his sin, held himself accountable to his God and repented from that sin when confronted with it. He didn't make excuses. He didn't try to spin it to say "well it's not really a sin". He didn't try to say "well I was born this way, it's just who I am". He didn't try to say "well, that Law of Moses was written 400 years ago. Times have changed and the Law doesn't have the same cultural significance now". No, he confessed his sin, asked forgiveness from his God and repented of it immediately.

    So do I really think that all sin is equal? Yes, in as much is that all sin separates us from God.
    It is a troubling thing when we only look at what happens around us not what truly matters and I am guilty of that as well we really need to bring our brethren back to what matters that's why we should spread more reformed theology around.
    "Excellent!" I cried. "Elementary," said he

  4. #6529
    Postin' since Aug '05 Dalak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    David wants us to let the unrepentant into God's house if we did the punishments listed in Revelations will befall more churches and you were practically asking us to do it. Yes they have voted for the wrong candidates and i am sorry for that however the alternative was to let the other one come in and let you all have your way unless a third party arises there was little else they could have done. And besides I am a victim here I was cyber bullied on this very forum by user Assam http://community.comicbookresources....-if-so/page431.
    It's good to know you're okay with people inviting the unrepentant into God's house as long as it's the ones you agree with politically, betraying Christ's teachings and their own morals in the process.

  5. #6530
    The Detective Man The Dying Detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Look East
    Posts
    4,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalak View Post
    It's good to know you're okay with people inviting the unrepentant into God's house as long as it's the ones you agree with politically, betraying Christ's teachings and their own morals in the process.
    Please we should never do that based on politics alone even those we can find common ground with are sinners in every way they both have to repent before we let them in otherwise they will cause the congregation trouble and will be thrown out.
    Last edited by The Dying Detective; 05-15-2018 at 12:16 PM.
    "Excellent!" I cried. "Elementary," said he

  6. #6531
    Postin' since Aug '05 Dalak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    Please we should never do that based on politics alone even those we can find common ground with are sinners in every way they both have to repent before we let them in otherwise they will cause the congregation trouble and will be thrown out.
    Look into Roy Moore and what he did then look at his supporters and how many of them used their faith to excuse that support. In doing so I hope you realize that while he is a big name there are many others in the US guilty of adultery and worse getting the same sort of backing despite their lies and unrepentant ways. Then tell me if you can find a country in the world where people haven't similarly supported monstrous unrepentant assholes. I don't think you can, and to clarify I'm talking about all organized religion so this isn't bashing any one belief. Now then, can you compare the potential number of those people around the globe with how many LGBT folks there are? I'm almost certain that there are more people using their faith politically to excuse acts their faith would normally scorn than LGBT in the world, and thus that seems like a much more problematic group to focus on preaching the evils of. In fact I encourage anyone in the thread to work on this if the mood strikes them.

    "however the alternative was to let the other one come in and let you all have your way unless a third party arises there was little else they could have done." was what you said about it though, which means you're fine with the worst people out there being elected as long as liberals aren't allowed to do anything. "There was little else" to do other than betray their faith in order to keep THE LEFT!! from being granted any authority. This is exactly the mind set I have ranted about for years, and made many posts about on this forum. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that this is the accepted god-fearing christian way of things? Anyone at all?

  7. #6532
    Astonishing Member David Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,911

    Default

    The fifty-first psalm is, first and foremost, a poem. As such it's not always intended to be taken literally. When David says, "I have sinned against you, you only" it's intended to express an emotional reality, not a doctrinal one. Because of course David has sinned against Uriah, whom he had murdered to cover up his sin! It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

    And if one can only sin against God and God alone, then why does Jesus Himself say, "If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them"? (Luke 17:3)

  8. #6533
    The Detective Man The Dying Detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Look East
    Posts
    4,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalak View Post
    Look into Roy Moore and what he did then look at his supporters and how many of them used their faith to excuse that support. In doing so I hope you realize that while he is a big name there are many others in the US guilty of adultery and worse getting the same sort of backing despite their lies and unrepentant ways. Then tell me if you can find a country in the world where people haven't similarly supported monstrous unrepentant assholes. I don't think you can, and to clarify I'm talking about all organized religion so this isn't bashing any one belief. Now then, can you compare the potential number of those people around the globe with how many LGBT folks there are? I'm almost certain that there are more people using their faith politically to excuse acts their faith would normally scorn than LGBT in the world, and thus that seems like a much more problematic group to focus on preaching the evils of. In fact I encourage anyone in the thread to work on this if the mood strikes them.

    "however the alternative was to let the other one come in and let you all have your way unless a third party arises there was little else they could have done." was what you said about it though, which means you're fine with the worst people out there being elected as long as liberals aren't allowed to do anything. "There was little else" to do other than betray their faith in order to keep THE LEFT!! from being granted any authority. This is exactly the mind set I have ranted about for years, and made many posts about on this forum. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that this is the accepted god-fearing christian way of things? Anyone at all?
    You're right okay no one should support the wrong people but at this is point there a third party then? And no I am not fine with letting the worst people get a elected I live in a country where where the previous prime minister was a thief who hoarded money while people were left to suffer. And that party had been in power for years even using blatant cheating to get what they want. But do you want to know the truth there are no good leaders! We can only choose whoever is the lesser of two evils whoever they maybe but unfortunately in this messed up world even we are not immune to wrong doing and and just make wrong choices and are in need of corrections. But then what what shall we do then don't vote? Because at this point America is so messed up that no leader is going to do any good. We have a new one but even though I voted for despite knowing that he was once a member of the same party that destroyed my country I have absolutely no faith in him. Because this is the world as it stand it's broken it's messed up and no man has the answer for it all. That's why I look to Jesus my perfect leader for help in these sad times we live in.
    Last edited by The Dying Detective; 05-15-2018 at 01:36 PM.
    "Excellent!" I cried. "Elementary," said he

  9. #6534
    The Detective Man The Dying Detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Look East
    Posts
    4,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Walton View Post
    The fifty-first psalm is, first and foremost, a poem. As such it's not always intended to be taken literally. When David says, "I have sinned against you, you only" it's intended to express an emotional reality, not a doctrinal one. Because of course David has sinned against Uriah, whom he had murdered to cover up his sin! It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

    And if one can only sin against God and God alone, then why does Jesus Himself say, "If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them"? (Luke 17:3)
    It was both an emotional and doctrinal issue when you sin against another you also sin against God.
    "Excellent!" I cried. "Elementary," said he

  10. #6535
    Astonishing Member David Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    It was both an emotional and doctrinal issue when you sin against another you also sin against God.
    Agreed. A sin against another human being is also a sin against God, but not against God alone.

  11. #6536
    Fantastic Member Psimitar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Walton View Post
    The fifty-first psalm is, first and foremost, a poem. As such it's not always intended to be taken literally. When David says, "I have sinned against you, you only" it's intended to express an emotional reality, not a doctrinal one. Because of course David has sinned against Uriah, whom he had murdered to cover up his sin! It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

    And if one can only sin against God and God alone, then why does Jesus Himself say, "If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them"? (Luke 17:3)
    I'm sorry, but how do you know it is not intended to be taken literally? Paul certainly took Psalm 51 literally when he quoted it in Romans 3:4. This is the inherent problem when when you start allegorizing the Scriptures. You get to make it mean or not mean whatever you want whenever it suits you. And I'm not suggesting that David was not acknowledging his sin against Uriah. I'm suggesting that David prioritized his sin against God over his sin against his fellow man. Your quote in Luke 17:3 is working on the assumption that if the brother or sister that sinned against you has repented, they have already repented before God, therefore forgive them.

  12. #6537
    Astonishing Member David Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psimitar View Post
    I'm sorry, but how do you know it is not intended to be taken literally?Paul certainly took Psalm 51 literally when he quoted it in Romans 3:4. This is the inherent problem when when you start allegorizing the Scriptures. You get to make it mean or not mean whatever you want whenever it suits you. And I'm not suggesting that David was not acknowledging his sin against Uriah. I'm suggesting that David prioritized his sin against God over his sin against his fellow man. Your quote in Luke 17:3 is working on the assumption that if the brother or sister that sinned against you has repented, they have already repented before God, therefore forgive them.
    But if you suggest that David was simply prioritizing his sin against God over that against others, then you yourself no longer take the verse literally.

    Because a strictly literal reading would mean David sinned against God and God alone. No one else.

    Are you simply making it mean whatever you want it to mean, or applying context and discernment? And if so, how is what I'm doing different?

  13. #6538
    Astonishing Member Darkspellmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    You read but you do not have reverence for God or the Scripture as you tell me and my brethren to violate it. Your understanding of it flies in the face of it and is only built on half-truths or flat out lies as you have no regard for the way the Bible was written or let alone the periods in in which it was written nor even the fact the Bible as with God is eternal so everything about it is relevant and even if a million years pass by it will remain relevant. There have been many translations of the bible but they say the same thing most of the time it's more of a matter of finding a Bible that has the most accurate translation but other than that it is not a sin to own a Bible with a different translation. No on has changed the Bible and I would like you to give me proof because it is a holy text to do it mean the perpetrator has committed a grievous crime unto God. Some books were taken out because they were not written under God's divine inspiration that's why they were taken out. So the ones I know and hold every day are the right ones.

    And don't get any ideas if Jesus is God made flesh then the Old Testament and the New Testament are all His words. And all you do is try to get the Bible to fit your perspective what sets you apart from the rest of our persecutors for trying force their ideas down our throats?
    Actually I do have reverence for him, because I question things around me, which is the point of free will. If we are truly built in God's likeness then we are to question ourselves and the world around us, because how can we really understand things if we don't understand how we ourselves work. Oh I have regard for the way the bible is written, I think it's a masterful work created by several authors deciding to tell the tale of Jesus how they saw fit to do so. Keep in mind that the bible we read is only a portion of the text, and text that was chosen by people who wanted it to say a certain message. If you look at some of the other gospels that are not in the book, like for example the gospel of Judas, it's shown that he wasn't a creepy that sold Jesus out for money, but rather someone that was obeying Jesus orders and was trying to get a better understanding of the man that he was serving.

    I highlighted those passages in bold to point them out to you.

    You mention that Most of the time they say the same thing. But if it's an actual acturate translation every bible should say the exact same thing, but they don't. In fact a lot of them switch words here and there, and, by that reasoning, even the switching of words is changing it. Words in Aramaic, mean different things and depending on the translator these can be changed up to read whatever a person wants them to read because of the fact that most people don't speak or read Aramaic anymore.

    You also mention it's not a sin to own a different translation of the bible, but I can point to the idea of Mormonism, a christian faith, that has a vastly different bible and uses sections of the main bible. Now, if they are using the bible as it is, and they are worshiping the same god as the Christian god, who is in the wrong here, because they "changed it" but they're using the same text at the same time. The very book you see in hotel rooms is the Mormon bible, and not the one that is used by my religion, Catholicism. So because things were changed, technically they're committing a crime. Yet they have a large portion of followers.

    You want me to show you proof, alright...fine...
    The consensus among modern scholars is that the gospels belong to the ancient genre of bios, or biography.[44] Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory, and so they included both propaganda and kerygma (preaching) in their works.[45] Mark, for example, is not biography in the modern sense but an apocalyptic history depicting Jesus caught up in events at the end of time.[46] Despite this, scholars are confident that the gospels do provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and that critical study can attempt to distinguish the ideas of Jesus from those of later authors and editors.[5]

    As Luke's attempt to link the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius demonstrates, there is no guarantee that the gospels are historically accurate.[4] Matthew and Luke have frequently edited Mark to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies between John and the synoptics make it impossible to accept both as reliable.[3] In addition the gospels we read today have been edited and corrupted over time, leading Origen to complain in the 3rd century that "the differences among manuscripts have become great, ... [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please."[47] For these reasons modern scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically, but nevertheless they do provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later authors.[4][5]
    Now as we know biographies are stories written by people other than the person that they are writing about. Due to this...this would mean that someone other then Jesus was writing his story. As we well known now, with modern biographers, people tend to exaggerate a story to fit better with how they want a person to appear or be remembered. As the page states, while Luke tried to link it to the census, that doesn't mean that it happened that way. In fact, it's more than likely that Jesus was born some time in Summer rather than winter, and our Christmas falls right near that "Pagan" holiday of Yule. For the record as you see in the bolded, meaning that things were cut, changed and omitted.

    So what we are reading is not the true text, but a text that has been edited over and over again, so much so that some of it may or may not be from the original works.

  14. #6539
    Astonishing Member Darkspellmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    Also I'm just going to quote the wikipedia article here in regard to the idea of being divinly inspired, as no gospel ever claims to have been.

    Canonisation
    The creation of a Christian canon was probably a response to the career of the heretic Marcion (c. 85–160), who established a canon of his own with just one gospel, the gospel of Luke, which he edited to fit his own theology.[48] The Muratorian canon, the earliest surviving list of books considered (by its own author at least) to form Christian scripture, included Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Irenaeus of Lyons went further, stating that there must be four gospels and only four because there were four corners of the Earth and thus the Church should have four pillars.[2][49]

    Non-canonical gospels
    Epiphanius, Jerome and other early church fathers preserve in their writings citations from Jewish-Christian gospels. Most modern critical scholars consider that the extant citations suggest at least two and probably three distinct works, at least one of which (possibly two) closely parallels the Gospel of Matthew.[50]

    The Gospel of Thomas is mostly wisdom without narrating Jesus's life. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says that the original may date from c. 150.[51] It may represent a tradition independent from the canonical gospels, but that developed over a long time and was influenced by Matthew and Luke.[51] While it can be understood in Gnostic terms, it lacks the characteristic features of Gnostic doctrine.[51] It includes two unique parables, the parable of the empty jar and the parable of the assassin.[52] It had been lost but was discovered, in a Coptic version dating from c. 350, at Nag Hammadi in 1945–46, and three papyri, dated to c. 200, which contain fragments of a Greek text similar to but not identical with that in the Coptic language, have also been found.[51]

    The Gospel of Peter was likely written in the first half of the 2nd century.[53][54] It seems to be largely legendary, hostile toward Jews, and including docetic elements.[53] It is a narrative gospel and is notable for asserting that Herod, not Pontius Pilate, ordered the crucifixion of Jesus. It had been lost but was rediscovered in the 19th century.[53]

    The Gospel of Judas is another controversial and ancient text that purports to tell the story of the gospel from the perspective of Judas, the disciple who is usually said to have betrayed Jesus. It paints an unusual picture of the relationship between Jesus and Judas, in that it appears to interpret Judas's act not as betrayal, but rather as an act of obedience to the instructions of Jesus. The text was recovered from a cave in Egypt by a thief and thereafter sold on the black market until it was finally discovered by a collector who, with the help of academics from Yale and Princeton, was able to verify its authenticity. The document itself does not claim to have been authored by Judas (it is, rather, a gospel about Judas), and is known to date to at least 180 AD.[55]

    The Gospel of Mary was originally written in Greek during the 2nd century. It is often interpreted as a Gnostic text. It consists mainly of dialog between Mary Magdalene and the other disciples. It is typically not considered a gospel by scholars since it does not focus on the life of Jesus.[56]

    The Gospel of Barnabas was a gospel which is claimed to be written by Barnabas one of the twelve apostles. It contradicts the ministry of Jesus in cannonical New Testament, but has clear parallels with the Islamic faith, by mentioning Muhammad as Messenger of God. It also strongly deny Pauline doctrine, and Jesus testified himself as a prophet, not the son of God.[57]

    A genre of "Infancy gospels" (Greek: protoevangelion) arose in the 2nd century, and includes the Gospel of James, which introduces the concept of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the absolutely different sayings Gospel of Thomas), both of which related many miraculous incidents from the life of Mary and the childhood of Jesus that are not included in the canonical gospels.

    Another genre is that of gospel harmonies, in which the four canonical gospels were selectively recast as a single narrative to present a consistent text. Very few fragments of harmonies have survived. The Diatessaron was such a harmonization, compiled by Tatian around 175. It was popular for at least two centuries in Syria, but eventually it fell into disuse.

    Marcion of Sinope, c. 150, had a much shorter version of the gospel of Luke, differing substantially from what has now become the standard text of the gospel and far less oriented towards the Jewish scriptures. Marcion is said to have rejected all other gospels, including those of Matthew, Mark and especially John, which he allegedly rejected as having been forged by Irenaeus. Marcion's critics alleged that he had edited out the portions he did not like from the then canonical version, though Marcion is said to have argued that his text was the more genuinely original one. Written in Coptic, it contains oracles that would have been used to provide support and reassurance to people seeking help for problems. It is not a gospel in the traditional sense, since it does not predominantly teach about Christ.[58]

  15. #6540
    Fantastic Member Psimitar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkspellmaster View Post
    Also I'm just going to quote the wikipedia article here in regard to the idea of being divinly inspired, as no gospel ever claims to have been.
    So when Paul tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.", can we at least agree that "Scriptures" (referring to the Old Testament) is divinely inspired? Especially since Jesus quoted heavily from just about every book in the Old Testament over the course of his ministry.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Walton View Post
    But if you suggest that David was simply prioritizing his sin against God over that against others, then you yourself no longer take the verse literally.

    Because a strictly literal reading would mean David sinned against God and God alone. No one else.

    Are you simply making it mean whatever you want it to mean, or applying context and discernment? And if so, how is what I'm doing different?
    It seems like you're saying that in order to adhere to a literal interpretion of Scripture, I have to take leave of my common sense and approach Scripture with a Drax the Destroyer-like mentality. The entire focus of Psalm 51 is David addressing his transgression before God. That has to come before anything else. And yes, applying context and discernment is occurring in my interpretation. However, I'm not dismissive of what is happening by saying "it's just a poem and as such, is conveying emotional reality and nothing else". What Psalm 51 shows is foundationally doctrinal. Our reconciliation before God is a foundational principle of our faith.

    My original point when I used that text was to illustrate that all sin is indeed equal in that all sin separates us from fellowship with God. So in circling back around to allow the open practice of homosexuality within the Church, unless we're in disagreement on what the Bible say regarding homosexuality (which many appear to be) how can we allow it to be openly practiced within the fellowship? But the fact of the matter is, we should not allow any sin to be openly practiced. Yes we are all guilty of sin. And we should help those within the body and without that are struggling with sin. But we cannot turn a blind eye to one particular type of sin simply because those who are engaging in it don't believe it's wrong are feel oppressed when they are told it is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •