No discussion?

[John t]

But still, you are required by the scripture to prove all things by Him by the scripture. It may be interesting but church history does not over ride any scripture that reproves what they teach.

Your statement indicates that further conversation with you is impossible.

 

[Hark]

Your statement indicates that further conversation with you is impossible.

Maybe it is because we are like 2 ships passing through the night or maybe you are failing to see the state of the churches now in the latter days.

I believe I understand your point of view and where you are coming from, but scripture is supposed to be your guide in proving all things with Him.

Since abiding in His words is how we follow Jesus, and if a church is not abiding in His words in following Jesus, isn't that churchianity ( your word & not mine )?

 

[John t]

John t said:

Your statement indicates that further conversation with you is impossible.

Maybe it is because we are like 2 ships passing through the night or maybe you are failing to see the state of the churches now in the latter days.

I believe I understand your point of view and where you are coming from, but scripture is supposed to be your guide in proving all things with Him.

Since abiding in His words is how we follow Jesus, and if a church is not abiding in His words in following Jesus, isn't that churchianity ( your word & not mine )?

In the short time you posted to me, and only only in this thread, you displayed a spirit of contentious argumentation that makes communication impossible.

Specifically, you sought to argue with me about:

1. Reformed Episcopal Seminary
2. (twice)
3. Creating a false conflict between Scripture and church history
4. The Law of Moses (vaguely defined by you)
5. Formal worship
6. Outreach Ministry, also not defined
7. The name Christian, first given in Antioch and recorded in Acts 11:26. T(his mixes Scripture and church history)
8. You somehow linked circumcision and salvation, which I never did
9. Wrongly accused me of using "churchianity" in this thread

All those combine in a very short space to indicate contentious intentions and an absence of any attempt to seek understanding. Because of that evidence, my continuing to post with you is not beneficial.

Jesus, isn't that churchianity ( your word & not mine )?

This is bogus because I never mentioned that fake word in this particular thread. I abhor that word.

Good bye.

 

[Hark]

John t said:

Your statement indicates that further conversation with you is impossible.

Looks that way.

In the short time you posted to me, and only only in this thread, you displayed a spirit of contentious argumentation that makes communication impossible.

Contentions presented, but you seem to have taken offense for it to be considered an argument.

Specifically, you sought to argue with me about:

1. Reformed Episcopal Seminary
2. (twice)

Because of their commitment which is not Biblical for how we are to serve Him. That was the contention that started it all.

1. Creating a false conflict between Scripture and church history

You made the comment of Methodist and another body as closest model to the early church in the N.T. Right? You made that comment as if you had believed it. So other contentions were raised.

1. The Law of Moses (vaguely defined by you)

Only because of your alluding to the Synagogues for how those 2 were close models to supposedly in the N.T.

1. Formal worship
2. Outreach Ministry, also not defined

Well, when I shared that there was no Christian worship in Jewish Synagogues back then that any account of disciples at the Synagogues, it was in outreach ministry as far as the Book of Acts goes. You seem to contend otherwise, albeit not clearly.

1. The name Christian, first given in Antioch and recorded in Acts 11:26. T(his mixes Scripture and church history)

Now see? How are you contending with me for that to mean? Are you applying scripture to validate Methodist & that Angelican one as being connected by church history in that wise? Because if you are, any church can say that. Just referring me to a book isn't going to answer my contention. Share what you have learned for why you believe that since I have shared why I doubt it and with just cause too.

1. You somehow linked circumcision and salvation, which I never did

I am not sure how that topic was addressed or used by either side in this thread..

1. Wrongly accused me of using "churchianity" in this thread

That one .. you are correct. I apologized. Not sure where I had recollected that from or why I had thought you had mentioned it to a post to someone else in this thread but I do not see it now.

All those combine in a very short space to indicate contentious intentions and an absence of any attempt to seek understanding. Because of that evidence, my continuing to post with you is not beneficial.

Well, it seems to me that you take pride in what you have learned and are sharing out of love for others, but this is about churches; not about our faith in Jesus Christ.

This is bogus because I never mentioned that fake word in this particular thread. I abhor that word.

Kind of misquoted me there; makes me look like I took the Lord's name in vain, but I forgive you. Yes, I have apoligized and will again for asking if you were the one that used that word Churchianity... and I was wrong. Shall I point ut that it was a question? " isn't that churchianity ( your word & not mine )? Thank you for correcting me.

Good bye.

Good bye, brother.

You should consider that anyone raising contentions about something you shared as not an attack on you. Sometimes clarity is needed or further information, but I accept that I have offended you without even trying.

Iron sharpens iron, but everything turned into an argument when I pointed out on what you had shared about the commitment of those churches as something Jesus did not ask His followers to do as if keeping that commitment is the power in how we serve Him when it is not.

It is by the grace of God & His help, trusting Him as the author & finisher of our faith as Head of the Church to minister to us and through us to others. This cannot be done aby any boast in the flesh which I wanted to point out to you, brother, in the beginning from your quote below.

Founded by the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1887, the Reformed Episcopal Seminary educates and trains Christians for lay and ordained ministries in the church of Jesus Christ. We are distinguished by our strong commitment to the inerrancy of God's Word, adherence to reformed theology and evangelical beliefs, worship and polity in the Anglican tradition, and an emphasis on pastoral ministry training.

We should be distinguished by our faith in Jesus Christ for that; not by keeping any commitment. FYI

 

[John t]

Proverbs 26:
21 As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife.

 

[Hark]

Proverbs 26:
21 As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife.

Thank you for what you believe is reproof towards me, but by contending with me in order to give reproof, and by the scripture, is that not Biblical?

1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

How does one correct heresies? By the scripture.

Are not my contentions in pointing out that which is contrary to scripture about keeping a commitments as if that is the power in living the Christian life in ministry to serve Him & follow Him by, against how Jesus really wants us to follow Him by faith as our Good Shepherd to help us to follow Him & to serve Him by?

Let us say you were among those you were representing and you found a heresy among them. You correct them by the scripture but they become offended as if you are making waves when all this time, they have been bragging about keeping that commitment so that would not be needed.

Can pride keeps them from receiving reproof from you? Or were you not in the Spirit of Christ to point out a heresy so that they may be found abiding in Him and bear more fruit as His disciples? Or is it better not to raise "contention" and just accept that they are keeping their commitment? ( Even though that believer's commitment is a heresy because that speaks of self and the keeping of it only glorifies self )

Do you really think any flesh shall glory in His Presence in Heaven by announcing how he has kept that commitment in his service to the Lord?

Do you not understand that when the elders cast their crowns at His feet, the crowns are really His crowning achievements in them as they are the works of His hands? That crown or crowns are what He has achieved in us since our confidence is in Him to finish what He has started within us.

The religious world can relate to a believer's commitment, but the world cannot relate to the believer's faith in Jesus Christ for all things.

John 3: 30 He must increase, but I must decrease.

John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

John 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

2 Corinthians 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

So the power in ministry is from Christ Jesus; not by religious men keeping that commitment to serve Him & to follow Him by. If they really were being witnesses of Him, they would not be speaking of their commitment where religious men had boasted in, but of their faith in Him.

 

[BMS]

I can say that the introduction of the course 'living in love and faith' has marked the transition of the Church of England to apostate.

 

[HillsboroMom]

I can say that the introduction of the course 'living in love and faith' has marked the transition of the Church of England to apostate.

I am not familiar with that course. Is this something available only in the UK?

 

[BMS]

Yes I think it is only available in the UK
Here is the trailer..

Perfect love is not sin. 1 John 4 also says " This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. " that is the perfect love that casts out fear, one cant live for a sin and have perfect love.
Its the very opposite of living in faith and not living in love.
This course isnt for the whole church as the Archbishops claim because ministries of people who experience same sex attraction and dysphoria but who uphold Christ's teaching arent in it. Furthermore some of the participants have already reported people who present the Biblical testimony to the police.

 

[HillsboroMom]

Yes I think it is only available in the UK
Here is the trailer..

Thank you. Sounds interesting.

Perfect love is not sin.

I agree with you 100%. Love is not sin, and perfect love is never sin.

This course isnt for the whole church as the Archbishops claim because ministries of people who experience same sex attraction and dysphoria but who uphold Christ's teaching arent in it.

I'm confused by this sentence. Are you saying that people who experience same-sex attraction, gender dysphoria, and/or any mental illness are not in the Church? Or that ministering to those people should be outside the Church? Or that this course is just for people who minister to a specific sub-section of the Church, and therefore isn't for the whole church?

Furthermore some of the participants have already reported people who present the Biblical testimony to the police.

I would have to have the whole story on this. I know that when the Lutheran Church did a similar study decades ago, there were people who disrupted it. "Presenting Biblical testimony" is fine, but if you are doing so in a disruptive many, uninvited and/or with the intention of being contradictory to what the church is teaching, you will be asked to leave.

The people for whom this study is intended are vulnerable. They have been victimized by society at large, and by the Church. Some have been killed. So if the church is reaching out to them in the hopes of helping them to find God, I applaud the Church. If they are circling the wagons to protect victims, then they are finally on the right side of justice.

If people within the church don't like it, I think they need to remember that the religious authorities of Jesus' day didn't like what Jesus was doing, either. He was reaching out to prostitutes, thieves, Samaritans (the worst of the worst, back then). They had absolute religious authority to show him he was wrong. They quoted it at him, too. They even killed him for it.

 

[BMS]

Thank you. Sounds interesting.


I agree with you 100%. Love is not sin, and perfect love is never sin.


I'm confused by this sentence. Are you saying that people who experience same-sex attraction, gender dysphoria, and/or any mental illness are not in the Church? Or that ministering to those people should be outside the Church? Or that this course is just for people who minister to a specific sub-section of the Church, and therefore isn't for the whole church?


I would have to have the whole story on this. I know that when the Lutheran Church did a similar study decades ago, there were people who disrupted it. "Presenting Biblical testimony" is fine, but if you are doing so in a disruptive many, uninvited and/or with the intention of being contradictory to what the church is teaching, you will be asked to leave.

The people for whom this study is intended are vulnerable. They have been victimized by society at large, and by the Church. Some have been killed. So if the church is reaching out to them in the hopes of helping them to find God, I applaud the Church. If they are circling the wagons to protect victims, then they are finally on the right side of justice.

If people within the church don't like it, I think they need to remember that the religious authorities of Jesus' day didn't like what Jesus was doing, either. He was reaching out to prostitutes, thieves, Samaritans (the worst of the worst, back then). They had absolute religious authority to show him he was wrong. They quoted it at him, too. They even killed him for it.

I said that there are people who experience same sex attraction and gender dysphoria but who know the truth of God's creation purpose for faithful man/woman union, none of whom were in the trailer, or indeed who are in the course.

It is no use listening to people's stories, if they aren't in line with Christ's teaching, unless to present the gospel or lead them to Christ. No idea what you mean by victims, Christ didn't come to condemn but to save. However same sex relations are not only contrary to what God has created but condemned as sin and a barrier to the Kingdom.


And you are right, people do need to remember that the religious authorities of Jesus day didn't agree with Jesus.

 

[HillsboroMom]

I said that there are people who experience same sex attraction and gender dysphoria but who know the truth of God's creation purpose for faithful man/woman union, none of whom were in the trailer, or indeed who are in the course.

No, that's not what you said.

What you said was:

ministries of people who experience same sex attraction and dysphoria but who uphold Christ's teaching arent in it.

Perhaps you meant to say:

People who experience same sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria and also believe that God intends marriage only for one man and one woman are not included in the course.

If this is true, it is disappointing. A thorough study should include a wide spectrum of understandings.

When the ELCA did a study like this -- back when I was in the ELCA -- we looked at a wide spectrum of understandings, from one extreme -- that all gays would burn in hell -- to the other extreme -- that casual sex is fine. The study took us through Scripture to learn that both of those extremes are wrong, and also an understanding that there isn't necessarily one "right" answer that will fit all situations, even within Scripture. It was important for us to learn that there are devout, Bible-based understandings of these questions that come to different conclusions. I would have thought the Church of England would have recognized that as well.

It is no use listening to people's stories, if they aren't in line with Christ's teaching, unless to present the gospel or lead them to Christ.

So, you see no value in listening to someone, in hearing about someone's past, except for the sole purpose of converting them to Christianity?

Remind me never to invite you to a party.

Also, you seem to be claiming to be a follower of Christ, and a student of the Scriptures, but I think you have missed some pretty important messages from the Bible.

Jesus doesn't want you just to walk around like a robot and push people into a church building.

Jesus wants you to be in relationship with HIM.

And every time you ask, "Ok, Jesus, I want that, too, but how do I do that?" Jesus' answer is the same:

You make a relationship with ME by making relationships with other people.

In fact, Jesus doubles-down, and says the uglier, nastier, harder-to-love people out here, those are EXACTLY the people that we are to be in a relationship with.

And "being in a relationship" with someone doesn't mean, "Okay, what's the minimum amount of work I need to do to turn you into a disciple?"

Because, as I'm sure you know, if you've ever been "Amwayed" by anyone, if someone is listening to you for the sole purpose of trying to get you to buy what they're selling, that isn't relationship. That's a pyramid scheme.

Being in a relationship with someone is doing whatever they need the most.

That might mean feeding them.

That might mean just listening to them.

No idea what you mean by victims,

Really?

You have no idea what the word "victim" means?

It's a person who has been harmed by some action, usually a crime, but not always.

Members of the GLBTQ+ community have been victims of bullying, of lost rights, of hate crimes, and even of murder for centuries.

Although they've been victimized by many, the Church has been one of the worst perpetrator of those crimes and that hate. The Church (that is, the world-wide Church) has much to atone for over the years, including her support of slavery in the US, her slowness to move against Hitler in Europe, and I haven't even gone back to before the "Age of Reason." It gets uglier the further back you go. But in this particular case, I'm speaking of hate aimed at the GLBTQ community. Too many members of clergy and in fact institutions have used their "authority" and the Bible to bludgeon members of the GLBTQ+ community, literally and figuratively to death.

Members of that community are indeed sinners. You will never hear me say otherwise.

Are they worse sinners than Samaritans?

I promise you they are not. Samaritans were horrible. They were mixed-breeds, abusers of God's holy writings. They were worse than Gentiles, because they knew and worshiped the same god, but they did so differently, making a mockery of him and everything he stood for. They didn't even come to Jerusalem to worship properly.

Make no mistake, calling someone a "Samaritan" was about the dirtiest, filthiest thing you could say about someone. It was like the N word is today.

And we know exactly how Jesus felt about them. And how Jesus expected us to feel about them.

And we know exactly how Jesus felt about the religious leaders who thought they were better than Samaritans, because they followed the Bible EXACTLY, so they were RIGHTEOUS, and that made them better.

Christ didn't come to condemn but to save. However same sex relations are not only contrary to what God has created but condemned as sin and a barrier to the Kingdom.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

I have seen too much evidence to the contrary, both in Scripture and in God's creation, to believe that.

As long as you don't hurt anyone, I will not begrudge you your opinion.

Now, if people on your side could abide by the same rules, we'd be fine.

 

[John t]

BMS said:
Christ didn't come to condemn but to save. However same sex relations are not only contrary to what God has created but condemned as sin and a barrier to the Kingdom.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I have seen too much evidence to the contrary, both in Scripture and in God's creation, to believe that.

Then can we assume that you never read verse 17 in its context? Here it is

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

 

[John t]

Duplicate

 

[BMS]

No, that's not what you said.

What you said was:


Perhaps you meant to say:


If this is true, it is disappointing. A thorough study should include a wide spectrum of understandings.

When the ELCA did a study like this -- back when I was in the ELCA -- we looked at a wide spectrum of understandings, from one extreme -- that all gays would burn in hell -- to the other extreme -- that casual sex is fine. The study took us through Scripture to learn that both of those extremes are wrong, and also an understanding that there isn't necessarily one "right" answer that will fit all situations, even within Scripture. It was important for us to learn that there are devout, Bible-based understandings of these questions that come to different conclusions. I would have thought the Church of England would have recognized that as well.



So, you see no value in listening to someone, in hearing about someone's past, except for the sole purpose of converting them to Christianity?

Remind me never to invite you to a party.

Also, you seem to be claiming to be a follower of Christ, and a student of the Scriptures, but I think you have missed some pretty important messages from the Bible.

Jesus doesn't want you just to walk around like a robot and push people into a church building.

Jesus wants you to be in relationship with HIM.

And every time you ask, "Ok, Jesus, I want that, too, but how do I do that?" Jesus' answer is the same:

You make a relationship with ME by making relationships with other people.

In fact, Jesus doubles-down, and says the uglier, nastier, harder-to-love people out here, those are EXACTLY the people that we are to be in a relationship with.

And "being in a relationship" with someone doesn't mean, "Okay, what's the minimum amount of work I need to do to turn you into a disciple?"

Because, as I'm sure you know, if you've ever been "Amwayed" by anyone, if someone is listening to you for the sole purpose of trying to get you to buy what they're selling, that isn't relationship. That's a pyramid scheme.

Being in a relationship with someone is doing whatever they need the most.

That might mean feeding them.

That might mean just listening to them.


Really?

You have no idea what the word "victim" means?

It's a person who has been harmed by some action, usually a crime, but not always.

Members of the GLBTQ+ community have been victims of bullying, of lost rights, of hate crimes, and even of murder for centuries.

Although they've been victimized by many, the Church has been one of the worst perpetrator of those crimes and that hate. The Church (that is, the world-wide Church) has much to atone for over the years, including her support of slavery in the US, her slowness to move against Hitler in Europe, and I haven't even gone back to before the "Age of Reason." It gets uglier the further back you go. But in this particular case, I'm speaking of hate aimed at the GLBTQ community. Too many members of clergy and in fact institutions have used their "authority" and the Bible to bludgeon members of the GLBTQ+ community, literally and figuratively to death.

Members of that community are indeed sinners. You will never hear me say otherwise.

Are they worse sinners than Samaritans?

I promise you they are not. Samaritans were horrible. They were mixed-breeds, abusers of God's holy writings. They were worse than Gentiles, because they knew and worshiped the same god, but they did so differently, making a mockery of him and everything he stood for. They didn't even come to Jerusalem to worship properly.

Make no mistake, calling someone a "Samaritan" was about the dirtiest, filthiest thing you could say about someone. It was like the N word is today.

And we know exactly how Jesus felt about them. And how Jesus expected us to feel about them.

And we know exactly how Jesus felt about the religious leaders who thought they were better than Samaritans, because they followed the Bible EXACTLY, so they were RIGHTEOUS, and that made them better.


That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

I have seen too much evidence to the contrary, both in Scripture and in God's creation, to believe that.

As long as you don't hurt anyone, I will not begrudge you your opinion.

Now, if people on your side could abide by the same rules, we'd be fine.

 

[BMS]

Perhaps you meant to say:

No, I said and meant to say what I said., both of them.

If this is true, it is disappointing. A thorough study should include a wide spectrum of understandings.

What do you mean by 'understanding'.

When the ELCA did a study like this -- back when I was in the ELCA -- we looked at a wide spectrum of understandings, from one extreme -- that all gays would burn in hell

Wait a minute, what do you mean by 'gays' and where are 'gays' in God's Biblical testimony?

The study took us through Scripture to learn that both of those extremes are wrong, and also an understanding that there isn't necessarily one "right" answer that will fit all situations, even within Scripture.

That means nothing. There is a right answer. Jesus created a woman from man and for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife... (Matt 19, Mark 10, Gen 1 and 2) Only man/woman sexual relations are countenanced in the Bible, and only faithful man/woman unions n the New Testament. Nowhere in the Biblical testimony are same sex relations countenanced, and there are a number of exclusions and specific condemnations as a barrier to the Kingdom.

So, you see no value in listening to someone, in hearing about someone's past, except for the sole purpose of converting them to Christianity?

No idea what you are talking about. Firstly, I said no use listening to people's stories UNLESS to present the gospel or lead them to Christ. Obviously I do see value in listening with that in mind. Don't you recall Jesus commanded believers to make disciples teaching them to obey all He taught. And of course Jesus did what He taught. As I said its no use listening to people's stories if it is going to lead people away from Christ and salvation through Him.

Remind me never to invite you to a party.

Why not? Jesus taught to invite people particularly those such as the poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind. (Luke 14) He ate with sinners (Mark 2) as I said He didn't come to condemn but to save.

Also, you seem to be claiming to be a follower of Christ, and a student of the Scriptures,

How would I not be by citing and quoting the scriptures?

but I think you have missed some pretty important messages from the Bible.
Jesus doesn't want you just to walk around like a robot and push people into a church building.

well that seems to be you missing what I have said above. Most often people dont want to come to church, Jesus and the disciples went out and shared the gospel with people where they were, and in the public square.

Jesus wants you to be in relationship with HIM.

Exactly.

And every time you ask, "Ok, Jesus, I want that, too, but how do I do that?" Jesus' answer is the same:
You make a relationship with ME by making relationships with other people.

I think you need to clarify that. Yes in principle believers
are to demonstrate God's love to others, to witness the gospel, but also to have a relations with HIM, to know how much He loves us and who He makes us through faith in Him. But don't forget He told the disciples to wipe the dust off their feet if they were rejected (Matt 10-11) Don't forget Pharisees invited Jesus to eat with them and they were insulted by what He said. Remember that His Kingdom is not of the world. (John 18)

Being in a relationship with someone is doing whatever they need the most.
That might mean feeding them.
That might mean just listening to them.

Absolutely, Christ's love is a sacrificial love. But not agreeing with what will lead people to death and destruction.

Really?
You have no idea what the word "victim" means?
It's a person who has been harmed by some action, usually a crime, but not always.

I didnt say I didnt understand what 'victim' meant, I wanted to know where you thought victim came into it.

Members of the GLBTQ+ community have been victims of bullying, of lost rights, of hate crimes, and even of murder for centuries.

Where is the GLBTQ+ community in the Bible? Since when were members of such a community not the men and women God created in His image and for His purposes? Since when has Christ taught to bully or hate or murder people?

Although they've been victimized by many, the Church has been one of the worst perpetrator of those crimes and that hate. The Church (that is, the world-wide Church) has much to atone for over the years, including her support of slavery in the US, her slowness to move against Hitler in Europe, and I haven't even gone back to before the "Age of Reason." It gets uglier the further back you go. But in this particular case, I'm speaking of hate aimed at the GLBTQ community. Too many members of clergy and in fact institutions have used their "authority" and the Bible to bludgeon members of the GLBTQ+ community, literally and figuratively to death.

Sure the church has a terrible record in some respects, which is why believers need to focus on Jesus teaching as the truth, the way and the life. It is no good listening to people's opinions about who they think they are contrary to what God has created.

Members of that community are indeed sinners. You will never hear me say otherwise.
Are they worse sinners than Samaritans?
I promise you they are not. Samaritans were horrible. They were mixed-breeds, abusers of God's holy writings. They were worse than Gentiles, because they knew and worshiped the same god, but they did so differently, making a mockery of him and everything he stood for. They didn't even come to Jerusalem to worship properly.

Well Jesus didn't say the Samaritans were horrible, He reached out to the Samaritan woman at the well, and through His witness and her telling, Samaritans came to follow Jesus. In Luke 17 we see one of the lepers Jesus healed was a Samaritan. And what about the parable of the good Samaritan? But He told the Samaritan women the Samaritans worshiped what they didnt know.

And we know exactly how Jesus felt about the religious leaders who thought they were better than Samaritans, because they followed the Bible EXACTLY, so they were RIGHTEOUS, and that made them better.

Well quite, as I have shared above.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

No, that is what the Biblical testimony of God tells us.

I have seen too much evidence to the contrary, both in Scripture and in God's creation, to believe that.

But you couldn't share any of it with us? You are quite happy to make some general remarks with examples about Samaritans, but unwilling or unable to back up this claim about having some evidence presumably about the so called LGBTQ community.

As long as you don't hurt anyone, I will not begrudge you your opinion.

Its not my opinion, and Jesus warns His followers that just as He upset people who hated Him, so will His disciples encounter the same threats.

Now, if people on your side could abide by the same rules, we'd be fine.

Probably not fine then.
Jesus created a man and a woman in the image of God, male and female He created them ( Matt 19, Mark 10, Gen 1) He created woman from man and presented woman to man who said, flesh from my flesh and bones from my bones because woman was taken out of man. It was for this reason a man shall leave His father and mother and be united with his wife and become one flesh. (Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 7)
Besides same sex relations are specifically condemned (Lev 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6-7, Romans 1, 1 Tim 1)

Where does this LGBTQ community fit in to Jesus teaching and what about those who affirm Christ's teaching above who also have same sex attraction? Are they in this LGBTQ community you refer to? Are they not homosexuals in the Kingdom of God?

 

[HillsboroMom]

BMS said:

Christ didn't come to condemn but to save. However same sex relations are not only contrary to what God has created but condemned as sin and a barrier to the Kingdom.

To which I replied:

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

John t answered:

Then can we assume that you never read verse 17 in its context? Here it is

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Sigh.

That wasn't the part of BMS' post I took issue with.

I guess I assumed it would be obvious from context that it was the SECOND sentence, not the first, which was opinion. But you know what they say about "ASSUME."

Yes, Christ did not come to condemn but to save. That is indeed Scriptural.

It was the next sentence that is BMS' opinion. And basically contradicts the first.

 

[HillsboroMom]

Wait a minute, what do you mean by 'gays' and where are 'gays' in God's Biblical testimony?

The same place where "electric lights" are. And "solar panels." And "flowers on the altar." And "Organ music."

There are a lot of things that just weren't understood at all at the time of Jesus.

There are devout, God-fearing Christians who believe that, since the New Testament makes no mention of any instrumental accompaniment in worship, we are not permitted to have any instrumental accompaniment in worship. You can quote Psalm 150 to them until you're blue in the face, but they'll say, "That's Old Testament. That doesn't count." You can point out that instruments are not prohibited anywhere, but they insist that if God wanted accompaniments, God would have put something in there saying so.

There are devout Christians who refuse to use electricity, because there's no mention of it in the Bible. Some feel it is "satanic." (And there are times I wonder....) But clearly you're not one of them. You recognize that electricity isn't evil, just because it's not mentioned in the Bible.

So clearly, just because it's not in the Bible, doesn't mean it's a sin.

But, you'll say, it IS in the Bible. Homosexuality is clearly condemned in Scripture.

Of course, there are a lot of things that are condemned in the Old Testament that Christians were told we no longer have to follow. Eating shellfish. Wearing clothing of mixed fibers. Performing various ritual cleansings at various periods of our lives. I'm guessing you agree with Paul that the Old Testament commandments are completed, or "perfected" (those words are the same in Greek), by Christ's salvific act. We don't measure ourselves by the Law, but by Christ.

Where Christ speaks, we are saved. Where Christ is silent, we are silent.

Do you know what Jesus said about homosexuality?

I can explain it full to you here: This is the entirety of what Jesus said about homosexuality:

 

[John t]

No one asked for my personal advice, but I will give it, anyway.

Those who are bickering, PLEASE SHUT UP! Nothing good can come from escalating a "she said, he said" situation, and for sure a mod will intervene if common sense no longer prevails

End of my advice.

 

[HillsboroMom]

No one asked for my personal advice, but I will give it, anyway.

Those who are bickering, PLEASE SHUT UP! Nothing good can come from escalating a "she said, he said" situation, and for sure a mod will intervene if common sense no longer prevails

End of my advice.

I was under the impression that this was a discussion board. Where people can discuss things.

If you're not interested in what a person has to say, you can always put the person on "ignore." There is no shame in that at all.

Telling a person to "shut up" is extremely rude.