The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: CactusCarlos on March 27, 2013, 04:51:28 PM
-
I’ve recently been invited to a couple of gay weddings. So — what with being Christian and all — I asked myself the famous, “What would Jesus do?†(Which I don’t too often ask myself, actually, since Jesus could, for instance, raise people from the dead and turn water into wine, whereas I can barely drag myself out of bed in the morning and/or turn water into coffee. Safe to say many of His options are none of mine.)
http://johnshore.com/2008/07/15/what-would-jesus-do-if-invited-to-a-gay-wedding/
It's an article from 2008. Saw it just a few mins ago on Facebook, thought I'd bring it over for discussion (It's not a long read).
I went to a gay wedding once years ago. While I don't condone the lifestyle or gay marriage at all, I wanted to be supportive to my friend.
Your thoughts?
-
If I were Jesus....I'd tear the place apart and throw all the pervert supporting fornicators out on their asses.....but fortunately for the DUmmies, I'm not Jesus and that's probably the exact opposite of what he would do.
-
http://johnshore.com/2008/07/15/what-would-jesus-do-if-invited-to-a-gay-wedding/
It's an article from 2008. Saw it just a few mins ago on Facebook, thought I'd bring it over for discussion (It's not a long read).
I went to a gay wedding once years ago. While I don't condone the lifestyle or gay marriage at all, I wanted to be supportive to my friend.
Your thoughts?
The closest analogy I can come up with is Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well (She was living in sin with a man). He didn't visit her home; but he did preach to her and saved her. He also ate at the home of Matthew, the tax collector.
Matthew 9:10-12
Jesus ate dinner at Matthew's house. Many tax collectors and other bad people came and ate with Jesus and his followers. The Pharisees saw that Jesus was eating with these people. The Pharisees asked Jesus' followers, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and other bad people?" Jesus heard the Pharisees say this. So Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Healthy people don't need a doctor. It is the sick people that need a doctor." (ERV)
Based on those cases; I believe he would go (but he would probably preach to them while there).
-
The closest analogy I can come up with is Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well (She was living in sin with a man). He didn't visit her home; but he did preach to her and saved her. He also ate at the home of Matthew, the tax collector.
Based on those cases; I believe he would go (but he would probably preach to them while there).
The DUmmies would probably tell him to mind his own business.
.
-
The DUmmies would probably tell him to mind his own business.
.
True.
-
He'd preach to them.
-
He would lay his hands on them and turn them straight.
-
I suspect that he would suggest that he who is without sin cast the first stone.
-
I suspect that he would suggest that he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Yes I think he would say something like that. I like to think that Jesus was a compassionate man. I guess that is another question to ask him in the hereafter..
-
I suspect that he would suggest that he who is without sin cast the first stone.
He would also remind those engaging in the sinful behavior that it was sinful and they should repent and sin no more.Since many Homosexuals and secularists lack introspection and humility however , it would fall on deaf ears. Make no mistake he was compassionate but also expected people to follow Gods law.
-
He would also remind those engaging in the sinful behavior that it was sinful and they should repent and sin no more.Since many Homosexuals and secularists lack introspection and humility however , it would fall on deaf ears. Make no mistake he was compassionate but also expected people to follow Gods law.
Exactly
-
Do any of you believe the "science" that says people are born that way? (homosexual)
-
Do any of you believe the "science" that says people are born that way? (homosexual)
Maybe, but not all of the tripe. I have a gay nephew who's been averse to dating females all of life. Now he has a "partner."
-
Maybe, but not all of the tripe. I have a gay nephew who's been averse to dating females all of life. Now he has a "partner."
My best friend in High School "went" homosexual sometime in his late 20s or so from what I hear. He had one of the best looking girlfriends around when I used to hang out with him. We lost touch for about 20 years after graduation. I reached out to him a few times a few years ago and he wasn't interested in renewing the friendship. I was pretty disappointed about that. He was one of the finest people I ever knew.
Funny thing is... I always kind of figured he was gay. He had some effeminate ways about him. I wasn't the least bit surprised when I heard that he had come out of the closet. It broke his poor mother's heart though.
-
Do any of you believe the "science" that says people are born that way? (homosexual)
Tricky question there. Science looking into baby's born with both sexes were studied. Most parents had to make a choice and have the baby under go sex surgery to remove one sex. Odd the parents were not really given a few years to see how the child developed before the surgery but I imagine the parents were in shock and could not think ahead.
Later in life an unfortunate majority found the parents chose the wrong sex to be saved. I have not yet found any studies on children whose parents raised a bisexual child or how it effected their later years. One would think one of the sex equipment would function better then then other, but ----
I have been taught that the body is just a instrument to cart the brain around. No telling, some people are born left handed, some are born with the unique abilities of the artist or musician.
Sex stems from the brain to insure we respond to signals as sight, hearing, smell, touch, most of this is learned behavior, but-----
How to explain personality differences in siblings born to the same parents ???? So I go out on a limb here and state that we see this every day among animals also.
I see no reason that a child can not be born with the brain of one sex and the body of another.
We Puritans equate sex with love for a good reason, helps keep the family intact and survive. I do not know what century the idea of love came into being, people had arranged marages and learned to care for each other. Same sex love was very common in the mid 1800's. No sex involved just the deep caring for a friend.
-
Do any of you believe the "science" that says people are born that way? (homosexual)
No. There is no science that conclusively proves they are. "Sexual Orientation" is a misnomer. The correct term should be "sexual choice".
-
My best friend in High School "went" homosexual sometime in his late 20s or so from what I hear. He had one of the best looking girlfriends around when I used to hang out with him. We lost touch for about 20 years after graduation. I reached out to him a few times a few years ago and he wasn't interested in renewing the friendship. I was pretty disappointed about that. He was one of the finest people I ever knew.
Funny thing is... I always kind of figured he was gay. He had some effeminate ways about him. I wasn't the least bit surprised when I heard that he had come out of the closet. It broke his poor mother's heart though.
I had a classmate that most of us suspected was gay, but no one ever teased him about it. I saw him at a couple of class reunions in the intervening years and he was still single. He had 3 sisters, 2 brothers and both parents and lived/worked on a farm in school. That would point to nature not nurture in his case.
He came out publicly on the news protesting for gay rights at the state capitol in Springfield. The bad thing is , he seems to avoid all his old classmates, even though he still lives in the area. One of his sisters said that is on Facebook, but he only has family on his friends list.
-
The question I ask myself, and will ask each of you...If you have/had a relative/friend that was homosexual, would you love tht person any less, or lose respect if they came out?? For myself, honestly, no. It is the same person, it is just their sexual choice is different.
There are a good handful that are gay that I work with. They are great people and great people to work with...
Why should I put my friendship with them or my respect for them on the line, because of a personal choice?
-
Do any of you believe the "science" that says people are born that way? (homosexual)
No. Not for everyone. Have known too many gay men who I knew before gayness who liked girls and I can remember as young men being groomed looking back. I think there are a couple of reasons: hormonal issues in uterine or think flamboyant males and mannish females and then those that have been abused or groomed. I believe both are either treatable or avoidable. A handful I would say may have a genetic issue since I don't know it can be entirely ruled out.
-
The question I ask myself, and will ask each of you...If you have/had a relative/friend that was homosexual, would you love tht person any less, or lose respect if they came out?? For myself, honestly, no. It is the same person, it is just their sexual choice is different.
There are a good handful that are gay that I work with. They are great people and great people to work with...
Why should I put my friendship with them or my respect for them on the line, because of a personal choice?
I don't need to ask myself that since I have a transgendered person in my family and several dear gay friends make and female. I don't care for the advocacy and some of the stupid crap they post but I love them as friends and in the other case as family. One if the sweetest and most considerate guys I know at work is a middle aged gayan. He always gives me cards and a little candy on holidays like Easter and I make it a point to hug him as I would a friend during holidays. He's just a very thoughtful sweet and yea funny individual. It pains me though when gays are dishonest that conservatives or Christians hate them most know that's a lie since I'm sure they have to have many friends who qualify as that considering my own experiences. I wonder sometime did they need to be asked the question you asked sea about someone who disagrees with them who they know cares for them.
-
He would also remind those engaging in the sinful behavior that it was sinful and they should repent and sin no more.
Put down that stone for a sec and share an instance where Jesus pointed out the sin(s) of someone who was not part of the Jewish temple, the organized religion of the time and region.
Thanks.
-
Since many Homosexuals and secularists lack introspection and humility however , it would fall on deaf ears.
You sound very sure of your judgment.
"Make no mistake he was compassionate but also expected people to follow Gods law."
I seem to recall that Jesus made a habit of breaking the Hebrew Laws of the day (eg eating the sacrificial bread from the temple, toiling on the sabbath, etc.) and confounding the religious leaders with his excuse for doing so.
I personally think that godly people serve the will of god best when they look to their own walk and resist the temptation to pass judgment on the walk of another, regardless of the faults one perceives in another's progress. I guess I trust my God to pass judgment where such judgment is called for; and in that trust I feel liberated in my approach to my fellow human being.
-
Jesus is everywhere. Including gay weddings.
-
Put down that stone for a sec and share an instance where Jesus pointed out the sin(s) of someone who was not part of the Jewish temple, the organized religion of the time and region.
Thanks.
Oh! So you're saying that because one isn't part of the jewish temple the commandments don't apply to you? You honestly think that Christ only believed that jews were the only human beings who sinned? So you actually believe you can do whatever you want,not be sorry or remorseful about it even if it is against a commandment and still be ok with God? I sin everyday....every human being does. The difference as I have seen it between Christians and secularists is that secularists believe that nothing is greater than the human being. You are the beginning and the end. Christians believe that isn't so. No one picked up a stone but someone touched a nerve apparently! Btw he actually told that woman who was about to be stoned to go and sin no more.Meaning she had sinned but it wasn't mans place to judge her it's Gods.Warning your fellow man about Gods judgement is not judging no matter what you may believe.It is an act of love.But I don't expect you to see that.
-
The question I ask myself, and will ask each of you...If you have/had a relative/friend that was homosexual, would you love tht person any less, or lose respect if they came out?? For myself, honestly, no. It is the same person, it is just their sexual choice is different.
There are a good handful that are gay that I work with. They are great people and great people to work with...
Why should I put my friendship with them or my respect for them on the line, because of a personal choice?
Nope. At one time, 20% of my living family was gay. Now it's 30%. We are a small family. (speaking of blood relatives, steps and in-laws make it seem not so abnormally small.)
-
You sound very sure of your judgment.
"Make no mistake he was compassionate but also expected people to follow Gods law."
I seem to recall that Jesus made a habit of breaking the Hebrew Laws of the day (eg eating the sacrificial bread from the temple, toiling on the sabbath, etc.) and confounding the religious leaders with his excuse for doing so.
I personally think that godly people serve the will of god best when they look to their own walk and resist the temptation to pass judgment on the walk of another, regardless of the faults one perceives in another's progress. I guess I trust my God to pass judgment where such judgment is called for; and in that trust I feel liberated in my approach to my fellow human being.
Not a judgment. An informed opinion.Have you looked lately at what over half of the people in this country have become? Or are you so afraid of offending the sensibilities of people who don't give a whit about the well being of you and yours that you choose not to "judge"? Do you have any principles at all?
-
Not a judgment. An informed opinion.Have you looked lately at what over half of the people in this country have become? Or are you so afraid of offending the sensibilities of people who don't give a whit about the well being of you and yours that you choose not to "judge"? Do you have any principles at all?
Could you possibly rephrase that in a way that resembles the English language so that I might adequately reply?
-
Oh! So you're saying that because one isn't part of the jewish temple the commandments don't apply to you? You honestly think that Christ only believed that jews were the only human beings who sinned? So you actually believe you can do whatever you want,not be sorry or remorseful about it even if it is against a commandment and still be ok with God? I sin everyday....every human being does. The difference as I have seen it between Christians and secularists is that secularists believe that nothing is greater than the human being. You are the beginning and the end. Christians believe that isn't so. No one picked up a stone but someone touched a nerve apparently! Btw he actually told that woman who was about to be stoned to go and sin no more.Meaning she had sinned but it wasn't mans place to judge her it's Gods.Warning your fellow man about Gods judgement is not judging no matter what you may believe.It is an act of love.But I don't expect you to see that.
I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that I believe any of the things you attributed to me in your post. I can only assume it's that judgmentalism thing again. Care to explain?
-
Could you possibly rephrase that in a way that resembles the English language so that I might adequately reply?
Nah! Wouldn't matter how I phrased anything.You're here to stir shit obviously. Carry on.
-
I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that I believe any of the things you attributed to me in your post. I can only assume it's that judgmentalism thing again. Care to explain?
Again...You're here to stir shit. Carry on. Not that important to me that you understand.
-
My sis is gay and has been that way from birth. I am 11 years older so I can remember things quite clearly and have no doubt about her orientation being lifelong. I also have many gay friends. For me, I can still love my sister and care deeply about my friends but to say I totally accept the lifestyle would be wrong. In a nutshell, I can hate the sin but not the sinner.
-
Do any of you believe the "science" that says people are born that way? (homosexual)
Very complicated. I have read that homosexuality is genetic, but only in men. However, it did not apply to Lesbian.
I have known gays who are against gay marriage. Yes, I do know gays.
-
I seem to recall that Jesus made a habit of breaking the Hebrew Laws of the day
If he broke the Law of Moses, then he is a sinner and not the Son of God.
But he didn't break the law, you're wrong, and He is the Son of God.
.
-
If he broke the Law of Moses, then he is a sinner and not the Son of God.
But he didn't break the law, you're wrong, and He is the Son of God.
.
So he didn't toil on Sabbath? Sadly, scripture says that he did. At any rate, it doesn't matter. The point I have been trying to make, and one I believe Jesus would have agreed with, is that one would do better to focus on one's own walk than the walk of another.
-
Oh! So you're saying that because one isn't part of the jewish temple the commandments don't apply to you? You honestly think that Christ only believed that jews were the only human beings who sinned? So you actually believe you can do whatever you want,not be sorry or remorseful about it even if it is against a commandment and still be ok with God? I sin everyday....every human being does. The difference as I have seen it between Christians and secularists is that secularists believe that nothing is greater than the human being. You are the beginning and the end. Christians believe that isn't so. No one picked up a stone but someone touched a nerve apparently! Btw he actually told that woman who was about to be stoned to go and sin no more.Meaning she had sinned but it wasn't mans place to judge her it's Gods.Warning your fellow man about Gods judgement is not judging no matter what you may believe.It is an act of love.But I don't expect you to see that.
If thinking all that makes you feel better as you try to sleep at night, then by all means go for it.
-
Put down that stone for a sec and share an instance where Jesus pointed out the sin(s) of someone who was not part of the Jewish temple, the organized religion of the time and region.
Thanks.
The woman at the well was Samaritan, not Jewish, yet Jesus pointed out that she was not married to the man she was living with. He did not expect Gentiles to follow Jewish Law, but that doesn't mean they aren't sinning.
The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus [!] said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."
And there were many different "organized religions" at that time, but only a couple survived.
-
You sound very sure of your judgment.
"Make no mistake he was compassionate but also expected people to follow Gods law."
I seem to recall that Jesus made a habit of breaking the Hebrew Laws of the day (eg eating the sacrificial bread from the temple, toiling on the sabbath, etc.) and confounding the religious leaders with his excuse for doing so.
I personally think that godly people serve the will of god best when they look to their own walk and resist the temptation to pass judgment on the walk of another, regardless of the faults one perceives in another's progress. I guess I trust my God to pass judgment where such judgment is called for; and in that trust I feel liberated in my approach to my fellow human being.
God's Law and Hebrew law are not equivalent...which is why He broke the man-written portion of Jewish law. As He said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Also, He did not eat the temple bread, He spoke of David doing so. His disciples had only eaten some grain from a field.
As Christians, we are commanded to tell other people the good news, and part of that is explaining what actions are sinful in God's eyes. That is not judging, that is doing what we can to save others. We are even more strongly commanded to "police" our churches, and help bringing sinning members back into obedience.
I'm sure you do feel liberated in your approach to fellow human beings, since you've abrogated your responsibility for them. :whatever:
-
So he didn't toil on Sabbath? Sadly, scripture says that he did. At any rate, it doesn't matter. The point I have been trying to make, and one I believe Jesus would have agreed with, is that one would do better to focus on one's own walk than the walk of another.
I think you need to actually read the Gospels a couple times. :-)
-
So he didn't toil on Sabbath? Sadly, scripture says that he did. At any rate, it doesn't matter. The point I have been trying to make, and one I believe Jesus would have agreed with, is that one would do better to focus on one's own walk than the walk of another.
The Philistines believed that getting grain from a field in order to eat was "toiling". They also considered healing on the Sabbath as "toiling". Those were man's interpretations of God's law.
-
I think you need to actually read the Gospels a couple times. :-)
With all due respect, I have read them a great many times.
-
Seeing as Jesus is everywhere, he would be in attendance regardless.
-
Jesus is everywhere. Including gay weddings.
Should have just H5 this - didn't see it before I posted.
-
The Philistines believed that getting grain from a field in order to eat was "toiling". They also considered healing on the Sabbath as "toiling". Those were man's interpretations of God's law.
Indeed, men have a knack for interpreting things in ways that support their preconceived notions. I personally think that this is the reason why one should be very careful when one engages in the judgment of others. Such judgment is usually above our pay grade.
I can accept this truth that Jesus shared with us all. Clearly there are those who cannot. I avoid arguing with such folks, for there is rarely fruit to be had that justifies the effort.
-
With all due respect, I have read them a great many times.
You seem to have missed most of the content. Or perhaps you can point to the verses where Jesus said that sinful acts were now ok? :-) Good luck. (I did notice that you ignored everything selse I pointed out. That does suggest that you have no foundation for a reply.) :-)
-
I think he would show up and weep because of the way people have turned from the wishes of the Father to serve their own image of god.
-
The woman at the well was Samaritan, not Jewish, yet Jesus pointed out that she was not married to the man she was living with. He did not expect Gentiles to follow Jewish Law, but that doesn't mean they aren't sinning.
Samaritism was a sect of Judaism.
The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus [!] said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."
Hardly a rebuke for sinning, but whatever.
And there were many different "organized religions" at that time, but only a couple survived.
There were, but nothing in that region as prominent as Judaism.
Look, I am simply trying to make the point that, while homosexuality may be a sin, so are many things that we as people do on a regular basis, even when we try not to. It seems that, just because homosexuality repulses many people, it is deemed to be a worse sin and so treated differently than the rest. Would you ostracize someone and refuse them equal treatment under the law because they have tattoos or body piercing, or because they happen to be an alcoholic? I doubt you would, yet those things are clearly condemned as sinful in the Bible. Why then should one type of sin and sinner be treated differently than the rest? If one proclaims to be a follower of Jesus Christ, then all sins should be treated equally. It is one's own sensibilities that seems to determine how we deal with our fellow sinners. I, for one, refuse to judge others because I too will be judged. Someone else's sin is not my responsibility. My responsibility is to live my life in such a way as to show my faith and to lead by example, not to treat my fellow man as a lesser being because of sins he or she may be guilty of.
We have human laws to deal with criminals and in our society homosexuality is not a crime as it is in more closed and dark societies in this world. Do any of you advocate criminalizing homosexuality or tattooing or body piercing, etc.? Probably not. So unless a crime is committed, then the Constitution of the United States says people deserve equal treatment under the law. This includes the right to marry. So, if such a right exists, then I see no reason that Jesus, if invited, would not attend a gay wedding. This does not mean he approves of homosexuality, it means he loves both the humans being married. That is the Jesus I have read about in the Bible.
-
Look, I am simply trying to make the point that, while homosexuality may be a sin, so are many things that we as people do on a regular basis, even when we try not to. It seems that, just because homosexuality repulses many people, it is deemed to be a worse sin and so treated differently than the rest. Would you ostracize someone and refuse them equal treatment under the law because they have tattoos or body piercing, or because they happen to be an alcoholic? I doubt you would, yet those things are clearly condemned as sinful in the Bible. Why then should one type of sin and sinner be treated differently than the rest? If one proclaims to be a follower of Jesus Christ, then all sins should be treated equally.
Shouldn't you at least be vaguely familiar with a subject before making grand pronouncements instead of just pulling statements out of your ass?
-
Shouldn't you at least be vaguely familiar with a subject before making grand pronouncements instead of just pulling statements out of your ass?
I believe that from man's perspective there are degrees of sin but from God's perspective sin is sin. Christians tend to be proud that we don't commit the juicy sins like murder, rape, theft, adultery,etc but excuse ourselves of the little lie or the occasional drunk, the lustful thought and a nurtured hatred but these are sins and God does not excuse them outside the forgiveness offered by Christ's death on the cross. They unrepentant liar ends up in the same place as the unrepentant murderer or adulterer.
-
I believe that from man's perspective there are degrees of sin but from God's perspective sin is sin. Christians tend to be proud that we don't commit the juicy sins like murder, rape, theft, adultery,etc but excuse ourselves of the little lie or the occasional drunk, the lustful thought and a nurtured hatred but these are sins and God does not excuse them outside the forgiveness offered by Christ's death on the cross. They unrepentant liar ends up in the same place as the unrepentant murderer or adulterer.
Be that as it may, I'll wager our interlocutor would be equally upset at Christians not approving of premarital sex, adultery, fudging government forms to obtain SSDI, etc. Non-Christian calls for "equality under the law" are only useful until they're actually applied and then the non-Christian is forced to realize just how shallow they truly are.
And Biblical law is a rather complex thing. Jesus noted that it was Moses -- not God -- that wrote the rules of divorce and Jesus made no effort to overturn this human fabrication designed to accommodate human defiance of Divine Will. Apparently He was more interested in Grace than box-checking.
-
Shouldn't you at least be vaguely familiar with a subject before making grand pronouncements instead of just pulling statements out of your ass?
What have I said that is not backed up by scripture? I have read the Bible many times and have studied Bible history. Please educate me and tell me what I have said that is at odds with Jesus' own teachings. I'm all ears.
-
Again...You're here to stir shit. Carry on. Not that important to me that you understand.
Obviously, any opinion, regardless of how well it is supported by Bible scripture, is tantamount to "stirring shit" to you. I must commend you on how tightly you have sealed access to your mind.
-
I believe that from man's perspective there are degrees of sin but from God's perspective sin is sin. Christians tend to be proud that we don't commit the juicy sins like murder, rape, theft, adultery,etc but excuse ourselves of the little lie or the occasional drunk, the lustful thought and a nurtured hatred but these are sins and God does not excuse them outside the forgiveness offered by Christ's death on the cross. They unrepentant liar ends up in the same place as the unrepentant murderer or adulterer.
These are the words of a Christian who walks the walk. Not all that difficult to understand, just uncomfortable to some as the truth so often is.
-
What have I said that is not backed up by scripture? I have read the Bible many times and have studied Bible history. Please educate me and tell me what I have said that is at odds with Jesus' own teachings. I'm all ears.
And just as you do at ToS you talk out your ass about being a Biblical "scholar"...but never can cite scripture to back up your Liberal view of what the Bible is and what it says.
So just as I did at CU let me educate a supposed "enlightened" thinker such as yourself.
Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. So obey everything they teach you, but don't do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else. (Matthew 23:1-3)
Jesus said to "obey the laws of Moses".
Guess what that includes?
Jesus had no compassion or acceptance of homosexuals. This is just uninformed clap trap.
Haven’t you read,†he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.†- Matthew 19:5-6
But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.†- Mark 10:6-9
Jesus is saying that sex outside the marriage...period...is a sin. Doesn't matter who it's with...male female...whether you go all the way or just play a little slap nd tickle.
Let's look at what one the Desciples says as well. From the Letters of Paul:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. – Romans 1:26-27
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. – 1st Corinthians 6:9-10
You've taken the compassion of Christ and twisted it into an acceptance of gays. This is the same kind of slippery slope loose interpretation of the Bible that allows Libs to claim that if Jesus were alive today he's be a Liberal like them. Neither could be further from the truth.
Jesus has compassion for man yes...but as long as rules are followed. He has no compassion for anyone who is commting sin...unless they repent and follow the word of God.
Now I'm just a Chriatmas and Easter church goer. I should go more but I don't. And I knew enough to blow your little theory about Jesus and gays right out of the water.
I'd hate to see what a scholar of the Bible...someone more "informed" like yourself would do to your hypothesis.
Now go ahead and once again accuse me of being "hung up on sexual preferences" or being "angry".
It's all you've got.
-
I think Jesus would have a response somewhere between overturning the money changer's tables and saying "Go, and sin no more". I would prefer they get the money changer treatment though.
-
And just as you do at ToS you talk out your ass about being a Biblical "scholar"...but never can cite scripture to back up your Liberal view of what the Bible is and what it says.
So just as I did at CU let me educate a supposed "enlightened" thinker such as yourself.
Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. So obey everything they teach you, but don't do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else. (Matthew 23:1-3)
Jesus said to "obey the laws of Moses".
Guess what that includes?
Jesus had no compassion or acceptance of homosexuals. This is just uninformed clap trap.
Haven’t you read,†he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.†- Matthew 19:5-6
But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.†- Mark 10:6-9
Jesus is saying that sex outside the marriage...period...is a sin. Doesn't matter who it's with...male female...whether you go all the way or just play a little slap nd tickle.
Let's look at what one the Desciples says as well. From the Letters of Paul:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. – Romans 1:26-27
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. – 1st Corinthians 6:9-10
You've taken the compassion of Christ and twisted it into an acceptance of gays. This is the same kind of slippery slope loose interpretation of the Bible that allows Libs to claim that if Jesus were alive today he's be a Liberal like them. Neither could be further from the truth.
Jesus has compassion for man yes...but as long as rules are followed. He has no compassion for anyone who is commting sin...unless they repent and follow the word of God.
Now I'm just a Chriatmas and Easter church goer. I should go more but I don't. And I knew enough to blow your little theory about Jesus and gays right out of the water.
I'd hate to see what a scholar of the Bible...someone more "informed" like yourself would do to your hypothesis.
Now go ahead and once again accuse me of being "hung up on sexual preferences" or being "angry".
It's all you've got.
With all due respect, nothing you posted was anything Jesus said about homosexuality specifically. The scriptures you shared that did address homosexuality were written by Paul who, last I knew, wasn't Jesus.
Just as I pointed out at CU, the Bible doesn't say something just because you say it does, and even if it does, you have to understand the context and, more importantly, who it is that is saying it. And, as I said over at CU, you and I debating this is rather pointless since you are operating on set of unprovable assumptions and I am working off of words at face value and empirical facts. Let us agree to disagree since to do otherwise is a waste of our time.
-
I don't know how more specific it can be if someone says a man and a woman will join.
-
You seem to have missed most of the content. Or perhaps you can point to the verses where Jesus said that sinful acts were now ok? :-) Good luck. (I did notice that you ignored everything selse I pointed out. That does suggest that you have no foundation for a reply.) :-)
Where did I say that homosexuality is not a sin? I personally take from the Bible that it is very much an abomination in the eyes of God. However, so is defiance of any of the Ten Commandments. It is, therefore, my argument here that, since not one of us is without sin, why should those guilty of the sin of homosexuality be treated as lesser beings by their fellow sinners? Do we ask Jesus if Jesus would attend the adulterer's wedding? Or that of the liar, or drunkard, or the obese guy who says, "God dammit" when he finds out the all-you-can-eat church supper is being held on the same night as Girls Gone Wild on Cinemax? Of course we don't. So why do some have no problem asking this question when it comes to the homosexual, let alone be so certain that the answer to that question is "no".
Think about it and I believe, or hope, that you will see why I have a problem with this notion and that God would have a problem with it too. The entire exercise is very reminiscent of the Biblical account where Jesus challenges the crowd gathered to stone the accused adulteress. Are we really so ready to cast our stones at these sinners as if we are without our own sins that are equally abhorrent in the of God? Did not Jesus die as an act of atoning for ALL of our sins? Was not His message one of redemption through grace rather than works? Did he not teach us to avoid judging others lest we risk being judged? Did he not instruct us to do for others what we would have them do for us. Think about it. For God's sake.
-
After Jesus saved her life, he told her to go and sin no more. The problem with many homosexuals is they claim that what they do is legitimate.
-
After Jesus saved her life, he told her to go and sin no more. The problem with many homosexuals is they claim that what they do is legitimate.
Yes, the do, but what is that to you unless it harms you or those you love somehow? Isn't their acceptance of their sinful state a matter between them and God? I cannot say with certainty whether Jesus would attend the wedding in question, nor can I say with certainty that he would not. I can only surmise what he would do based upon the values he tried to instill upon his followers during his truncated life and things he is recorded as having actually said according to the Gospels. If I have to offer an answer, I would have to say that he would attend.
-
Yes, the do, but what is that to you unless it harms you or those you love somehow? Isn't their acceptance of their sinful state a matter between them and God? I cannot say with certainty whether Jesus would attend the wedding in question, nor can I say with certainty that he would not. I can only surmise what he would do based upon the values he tried to instill upon his followers during his truncated life and things he is recorded as having actually said according to the Gospels. If I have to offer an answer, I would have to say that he would attend.
Maybe you are having trouble defining sin. Jesus loved to be around sinners, but he refused to be around those who rejected him or his teachings. He told his disciples to shake the dust off the sandals of the towns wherein people rejected Jesus and his message. I don't see how he could possibly condone by his presence those that deny their sin.
-
Maybe you are having trouble defining sin. Jesus loved to be around sinners, but he refused to be around those who rejected him or his teachings. He told his disciples to shake the dust off the sandals of the towns wherein people rejected Jesus and his message. I don't see how he could possibly condone by his presence those that deny their sin.
Apes problem is he sees sin as a gray area open to individual interpretation. Which is kinda odd for someone who claims to be a Biblical scholar.
He's applying the Liberaltarian belief that it's ok to do something as long as it's not hurting anyone else to Biblical teachings.
-
Apes problem is he sees sin as a gray area open to individual interpretation. Which is kinda odd for someone who claims to be a Biblical scholar.
He's applying the Liberaltarian belief that it's ok to do something as long as it's not hurting anyone else to Biblical teachings.
Wrong again. I do not see sin as a gray area at all. I just see another person's sin as their sin for them to deal with, not mine. I do not consider that a problem but rather the virtue of avoiding the judgment of others just as Jesus warned us against. You are welcome to point and pass judgment on the sins of others if you'd like, but I choose not to engage in such folly.
-
Maybe you are having trouble defining sin. Jesus loved to be around sinners, but he refused to be around those who rejected him or his teachings. He told his disciples to shake the dust off the sandals of the towns wherein people rejected Jesus and his message. I don't see how he could possibly condone by his presence those that deny their sin.
On the contrary, I am one of those who understands well that sin is sin and that there is no hierarchy when it comes to sin. To think that some hierarchy exists leaves you with the same false sense of self-righteousness and hypocrisy that the Jesus saw in the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes of the Bible.
-
On the contrary, I am one of those who understands well that sin is sin and that there is no hierarchy when it comes to sin. To think that some hierarchy exists leaves you with the same false sense of self-righteousness and hypocrisy that the Jesus saw in the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes of the Bible.
Who said anything about hierarchy ? You did. We are to have a spirit of discernment. We are not supposed to ignore the act of a sin in our brothers. We are to approach them and point out their sin, not judging their heart, but judging their action, if you witnessed it. If the one is rebuked then a group should go and confront the sinner. If they are rebuked, the sinner is looking squarely in the face of excommunication. By the same token, we are to be open to those that would approach us in the same manner to point out our sin. If we have sinned, it is not acceptable to declare our sin to be anything but sin. The LGBLT community makes all kinds of assertions that what they practice is normal, and accepted, and beautiful, and not sinful.
-
Wrong again. I do not see sin as a gray area at all. I just see another person's sin as their sin for them to deal with, not mine. I do not consider that a problem but rather the virtue of avoiding the judgment of others just as Jesus warned us against. You are welcome to point and pass judgment on the sins of others if you'd like, but I choose not to engage in such folly.
So turning a blind eye to sin is somehow righteous?
-
Who said anything about hierarchy ? You did. We are to have a spirit of discernment. We are not supposed to ignore the act of a sin in our brothers. We are to approach them and point out their sin, not judging their heart, but judging their action, if you witnessed it. If the one is rebuked then a group should go and confront the sinner. If they are rebuked, the sinner is looking squarely in the face of excommunication. By the same token, we are to be open to those that would approach us in the same manner to point out our sin. If we have sinned, it is not acceptable to declare our sin to be anything but sin. The LGBLT community makes all kinds of assertions that what they practice is normal, and accepted, and beautiful, and not sinful.
Exactly. We are to be SALT. Salt preserves, salt burns, salt flavors...but salt is never the same as it's surroundings. "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men." Our job is to be LIKE Jesus, who constantly pointed out the sins of others, who was NOT meek and mild but rather such an attraction and irritation that the leaders of His day had to kill Him in an effort to regain control.
When He saw corruption and sin in His Father's house, what did He do? Did He go away and pray about it, because judging is wrong? NO! He called out the priests and scribes. He fashioned a whip and drove them corrupt sellers from the Temple. Those that hide behind one verse to forgive themselves from becoming involved in saving the LOST are the ones that have no understanding of the Good News.
Oh, and Ape, you "Biblical scholar" and all... "Therefore the Samaritan woman [!] said to Him, "How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)" It would seem that the Samaritan woman did not consider herself a Jew. Seriously, for someone that has read the gospels repeatedly, why do you know NOTHING they say?
-
Re: What Would Jesus Do If Invited to a Gay Wedding?
Turn the wine into water.
-
Exactly. We are to be SALT. Salt preserves, salt burns, salt flavors...but salt is never the same as it's surroundings. "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men." Our job is to be LIKE Jesus, who constantly pointed out the sins of others, who was NOT meek and mild but rather such an attraction and irritation that the leaders of His day had to kill Him in an effort to regain control.
When He saw corruption and sin in His Father's house, what did He do? Did He go away and pray about it, because judging is wrong? NO! He called out the priests and scribes. He fashioned a whip and drove them corrupt sellers from the Temple. Those that hide behind one verse to forgive themselves from becoming involved in saving the LOST are the ones that have no understanding of the Good News.
Oh, and Ape, you "Biblical scholar" and all... "Therefore the Samaritan woman [!] said to Him, "How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)" It would seem that the Samaritan woman did not consider herself a Jew. Seriously, for someone that has read the gospels repeatedly, why do you know NOTHING they say?
Mrs Smith you're gong to get nowhere with this Charlatan.
He will continue to dismiss anything you show him that flies in the face of his twisted view of the Scriptures and the teachings of the Bible.
He's proven as much in this thread as well as a similar thread at CU.
He is an intellectual fraud and a liar
-
Turn the wine into water.
Nicely Done, Hi 5.
-
It is a known fact that the Samaritans were a sect of Judaism, just as the Christians were (and still essentially are) a sect of Judaism. You can take whatever you like from the Biblical story about the woman by the well, but the facts are the facts. It always seems to be the facts about your own religion that throw some of you Christians the most.
-
So how about those laws of divorce?
-
Which ones?
-
Turn the wine into water.
I do that every time I drink. Turn wine to water, turn beer to water, turn whiskey to water.....
If he turned the water into bourbon, then I'd be impressed!
-
I do that every time I drink. Turn wine to water, turn beer to water, turn whiskey to water.....
If he turned the water into bourbon, then I'd be impressed!
How do you know you have turned wine, beer, whiskey into water?
-
How do you know you have turned wine, beer, whiskey into water?
Well, it was 95% water, with traces of urea, ethanol, salts, and various metabolites.
:pisscontest:
-
Well, it was 95% water, with traces of urea, ethanol, salts, and various metabolites.
:pisscontest:
Yuck, you drank it.....
-
Which ones?
The ones Moses took upon himself to write absent divine revelation.
-
Yuck, you drank it.....
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
No, but I've had urinalysis before, many times. I know what's in it.
I added "ethanol" to the list because we're talking about turning wine into water, but I have never had ethanol appear in a urine sample.
-
Honestly, I think Jesus would have went. God loved everyone, he didn't pick and choose. He didn't catch everybody when they lied and tell them not to do that, otherwise he'd still be doing it today too. I also don't believe god would be too upset with people loving each other, but more for the people committing sin to enforce their interpretation of the bible. If we sin to enforce our religious ways on others, we're no better than the terrorists in Middle East.
-
It is a known fact that the Samaritans were a sect of Judaism, just as the Christians were (and still essentially are) a sect of Judaism. You can take whatever you like from the Biblical story about the woman by the well, but the facts are the facts. It always seems to be the facts about your own religion that throw some of you Christians the most.
Strangely enough, the woman in question obviously did NOT consider herself a Jew...but I'm sure YOU know better than some ancient woman about what she was. ::)
Also, Christianity is rooted in Judaism, but is certainly not a sect of it, as was made very plain in that New Testament that you've studied and read extensively (yet remain clueless about.)
-
Honestly, I think Jesus would have went. God loved everyone, he didn't pick and choose. He didn't catch everybody when they lied and tell them not to do that, otherwise he'd still be doing it today too. I also don't believe god would be too upset with people loving each other, but more for the people committing sin to enforce their interpretation of the bible. If we sin to enforce our religious ways on others, we're no better than the terrorists in Middle East.
God loves everyone, but He hates sin. If we sin by approving of sin, we are far worse than the terrorists. They only kill the body, but we neglect the duty to the eternal soul.
-
Honestly, I think Jesus would have went.
No he wouldn't have.
God loved everyone, he didn't pick and choose.
No he made it very clear for all that Homosexuality was a sin. And for Jesus to have gone against his Father's teachings would have been completely wrong out out of line with what Jesus taught.
He didn't catch everybody when they lied and tell them not to do that, otherwise he'd still be doing it today too.
He did then and he still does today. Just because you aren't turned into a pillar of salt immediately doesn't mean you will not have to answer for what you have done on this earth at some point.
I also don't believe god would be too upset with people loving each other, but more for the people committing sin to enforce their interpretation of the bible. If we sin to enforce our religious ways on others, we're no better than the terrorists in Middle East.
Oh goody another one who likes to turn the Scriptures into something they aren't to justify his/her own desires over what they should be doing.
-
Strangely enough, the woman in question obviously did NOT consider herself a Jew...but I'm sure YOU know better than some ancient woman about what she was. ::)
Also, Christianity is rooted in Judaism, but is certainly not a sect of it, as was made very plain in that New Testament that you've studied and read extensively (yet remain clueless about.)
Once again, you reveal that your knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is confined to what you learned in Sunday school and that you are unfamiliar with the history of the Biblical texts and the religion themselves. It is the only possible explanation you would make those two statements. Wow.
-
author=txradioguy | No he wouldn't have.
You sound so sure of yourself. It's comforting to know that if we want to know the mind of God, we need only ask you.
Oh goody another one who likes to turn the Scriptures into something they aren't to justify his/her own desires over what they should be doing.
Look who's talking.
-
You sound so sure of yourself. It's comforting to know that if we want to know the mind of God, we need only ask you.
Look who's talking.
We are to know the mind of God...through the scriptures. Not the corruption of them.
Let not many of you teach, for you will be held to a higher standard. Do not lead astray my sheep.
Luckily there are enough here to repel your heresy, and not be led astray, but what you proffer is corrupt.
-
Let not many of you teach, for you will be held to a higher standard.
So very true.
-
So very true.
I'm glad you decided to quit.
-
Oh zing.
-
You sound so sure of yourself. It's comforting to know that if we want to know the mind of God, we need only ask you.
I stand sure of what the Scriptures say and what Jesus said about obeying his Father's teachings.
Do I REALLY need to repost those passages for a third time for you?
Look who's talking.
You better take a long hard look in the mirror dumbass. You're the smug SOB who likes to tell us how wrong we all are and how you're such an enlightened thinker...yet can't back up what you say.
You've been embarrassed at one board on this topic...guess you want to try for two now huh?
-
Once again, you reveal that your knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is confined to what you learned in Sunday school and that you are unfamiliar with the history of the Biblical texts and the religion themselves. It is the only possible explanation you would make those two statements. Wow.
Once again you arrogantly deride someone who obviously knows more than you do on the subject.
So tell me...where do you acquire your alleged knowledge of the Scriptures that makes you so certain we're all so wrong?
What or who makes you the undisputed expert?
-
Once again you arrogantly deride someone who obviously knows more than you do on the subject.
So tell me...where do you acquire your alleged knowledge of the Scriptures that makes you so certain we're all so wrong?
What or who makes you the undisputed expert?
High School World History classes?
-
So he didn't toil on Sabbath? Sadly, scripture says that he did. At any rate, it doesn't matter. The point I have been trying to make, and one I believe Jesus would have agreed with, is that one would do better to focus on one's own walk than the walk of another.
Jesus did not violate any law given from God, and he was Lord of the Sabbath, so he did not sin.
And while one's own walk is important, Jesus also commands his followers to "Go, and teach" which would mean to involve oneself in the lives of others to bring them the gospel.
.
-
Jesus did not violate any law given from God, and he was Lord of the Sabbath, so he did not sin.
And while one's own walk is important, Jesus also commands his followers to "Go, and teach" which would mean to involve oneself in the lives of others to bring them the gospel.
.
Keep in mind when talking to AA about all things Biblical...you're dealing with someone who does not believe the Bible is the word of God.
-
Keep in mind when talking to AA about all things Biblical...you're dealing with someone who does not believe the Bible is the word of God.
It should be pointed out that ALL empirical evidence indicates that the Bible was penned, edited, and compiled by men. Any other assertion is entirely based on belief (faith). That is not to say that it is definitively NOT literally written by God, only that there is absolutely no tangible evidence to support that notion. Therein lies the rub when it comes to Biblical debate. There are those who approach any discussion of Biblical scriptures from a faith-based perspective and there are those that approach any such conversation from the perspective of known historical and scientific facts. While the two perspectives need not be mutually exclusive, more often than not, the attitudes of the people engaging in a debate on the subject lend themselves to almost unavoidably engaging in debate from diametrically opposing logic streams.
This is perhaps why it is often wisest to avoid encounters of this sort so as to obviate hurt feelings from any vitriol that might develop where it otherwise would not. Can we please agree to disagree and walk away friends rather than pissed off over something neither of us can change?
-
It should be pointed out that ALL empirical evidence indicates that the Bible was penned, edited, and compiled by men. Any other assertion is entirely based on belief (faith). That is not to say that it is definitively NOT literally written by God, only that there is absolutely no tangible evidence to support that notion. Therein lies the rub when it comes to Biblical debate. There are those who approach any discussion of Biblical scriptures from a faith-based perspective and there are those that approach any such conversation from the perspective of known historical and scientific facts. While the two perspectives need not be mutually exclusive, more often than not, the attitudes of the people engaging in a debate on the subject lend themselves to almost unavoidably engaging in debate from diametrically opposing logic streams.
I don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you with your screwed up notion of how to read interpret and perceive the Bible. You remind me of the Pharisees that demanded Jesus perform a miracle on demand to prove he was indeed the Son of God.
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law answered Jesus. They said, "Teacher, we want to see you do a miracle as a sign (proof)." Jesus answered, "Evil and sinful people are the ones that want to see a miracle for a sign (proof). But no miracle will be given as a sign to those people. The only sign will be the miracle that happened to the prophet Jonah. Jonah was in the stomach of the big fish for three days and three nights. In the same way, the Son of Man will be in the grave three days and three nights." - Matthew 12:38-40
If you're waiting for some kind of empirical evidence or scientific proof...you're setting yourself up for a big BIG disappointment. If you need that to somehow justify your belief in God...then your belief really isn't there in the first place.
That's why it's called faith.
This is perhaps why it is often wisest to avoid encounters of this sort so as to obviate hurt feelings from any vitriol that might develop where it otherwise would not.
This coming from the same person that said:
If you wish to debate the Bible with me, I suggest you show up well-armed because I'm packing.
The only thing you've been "packing" was a bunch of new age crap philosophy that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.
Can we please agree to disagree and walk away friends rather than pissed off over something neither of us can change?
We were never friends to begin with you arrogant ass.
-
AA thinks change is a 4 letter word.
-
It should be pointed out that ALL empirical evidence indicates that the Bible was penned, edited, and compiled by men. Any other assertion is entirely based on belief (faith). That is not to say that it is definitively NOT literally written by God, only that there is absolutely no tangible evidence to support that notion. Therein lies the rub when it comes to Biblical debate. There are those who approach any discussion of Biblical scriptures from a faith-based perspective and there are those that approach any such conversation from the perspective of known historical and scientific facts. While the two perspectives need not be mutually exclusive, more often than not, the attitudes of the people engaging in a debate on the subject lend themselves to almost unavoidably engaging in debate from diametrically opposing logic streams.
This is perhaps why it is often wisest to avoid encounters of this sort so as to obviate hurt feelings from any vitriol that might develop where it otherwise would not. Can we please agree to disagree and walk away friends rather than pissed off over something neither of us can change?
BS for the highlighted shoddy writing. Try simple declarative sentences- one thought, one sentence.
Stop being a squish.
-
BS for the highlighted shoddy writing. Try simple declarative sentences- one thought, one sentence.
Stop being a squish.
I take it that English is your second language?
-
The only thing you've been "packing" was a bunch of new age crap philosophy that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.
He did pack his Jockeys.
Ape, a tip: the rolled up sock goes in the front.
-
He did pack his Jockeys.
Ape, a tip: the rolled up sock goes in the front.
Egad...You mean he's a...socktucker ?
-
I take it that English is your second language?
Thanks for proving my point.
Double squish.
-
Egad...You mean he's a...socktucker ?
Oh, shit. Now Tucker is gonna come in and BS us all!
:hyper: :hyper: :hyper:
-
Thanks for proving my point.
Double squish.
Been drinking?
-
I haven't read all of the posts here so this may have already been mentioned...
There is no doubt that Jesus associated with some serious sinners, but I don't THINK He would have went to a homosexual wedding.
Let's look at His meeting with Zacchaeus.
Zacchaeus was a tax collector. Back then tax collectors had a reputation for being crooked. Despite this, Jesus went to his house; however, Jesus did NOT go out on a collection run with Zacchaeus and participate with his sinning.
If Jesus was invited to a homosexual wedding He would probably talk to the sinners, but I don't think He would go to the wedding which would be participating with (or even celebrating) their sinning.
Oh, and while the Samaritans and Jews may have came from the same tree (so to speak), the Samaritans were a sect of Judaism about as much as Pentecostals are a sect of the Roman Catholics.
-
Do any of you believe the "science" that says people are born that way? (homosexual)
There is no such science. The matter is infinitely more complex than that.
-
The wine would have been fruitier.
-
The wine would have been fruitier.
That makes sense, since the fruits are whinier.
-
That makes sense, since the fruits are whinier.
The wine would have been fruitier.
Good stuff, guys.
You will both be pleased to know that I am also black, in protest of the current administration.
-
You will both be pleased to know that I am also black, in protest of the current administration.
Dewey the African American Basset Hound approves. High five.