No, I said a lot of conservative people do...
If the scenario doesn't fit you then great!
Gay stuff, not saying which way to judge, but hear the person before you judge
- Thread starter Dan_473
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
If the scenario doesn't fit you then great!
I'm going to bow out of the thread at this time because I think I've said what I have to say and to continue on would evolve into endless repeats.
The main points I wanted to communicate was that it is good to hear someone personally as opposed to secondhand reports,
And that if one desires a strict, literal reading of the Bible that is good as long as it is consistent. Meaning that one doesn't look for workarounds on subjects like women being silent in the church or learning with quietness and all submission or what an abused person is to do in regards to biblically directed obedience.
The main points I wanted to communicate was that it is good to hear someone personally as opposed to secondhand reports,
And that if one desires a strict, literal reading of the Bible that is good as long as it is consistent. Meaning that one doesn't look for workarounds on subjects like women being silent in the church or learning with quietness and all submission or what an abused person is to do in regards to biblically directed obedience.
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
I hate myself so I probably will check it out, just out of interest. Im a curious individual.
oh no...don't say you hate yourself
I'm curious also...not nosy, just curious...besides, checking de facts is always a good thing
Wise choice I think. You'll not receive concession to your point no matter how you reword your intention. Or point out you did not say what you're accused of.
The Deuteronomy verse is deeply wise in this thread don't you think? In the event you do browse here again seeing your remarks were added in a quoted response. God bless you.
Deuteronomy 1:17 (GW) Be impartial in your decisions. Listen to the least important people the same way you listen to the most important people. Never be afraid of anyone, since your decisions come from God. You may bring me any case that's too hard for you, and I will hear it."
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
I know the Wilde commercial you're talking about. It's great. "I'm thinking about taking that bridge."
At least they don't show any croc's catching their friends during the crossing.
I use to think that probably every generation since the invention of radio and TV said the same thing I have. The world's going to Hell faster now than ever before.
And I figured that would have been the case because of all the new technology and social more's that changed or arrived every generation since the invent of radio & TV. Boy was I wrong. I met a woman at the laundry that was 104. No kidding. You gotta talk to someone who's over a century old. Ya know?
We got to talking about society's woes and politics. I told her my thoughts about every generation saying the same thing. Not in the least.
In her generation when she was but a child the changes were spectacular and positive for society. The telephone, the car, that you could buy from Mr. Ford in any color....as long as the color of choice was black.
Sure, it got dicey with the civil rights stuff and what with the not that long removed history of slavery. Though free blacks did fight for the north. But it was nothing like today, she said.
Never would a parent bring a suit against a school so that her little boy could pretend to be a girl and have access to all the girl facilities there. Gay marriage wasn't even imagined because in her day being gay was being happy go lucky and thrilled with life.
One didn't sue the baker because he refused to make a cake for personal reasons. One simply baked their own. Or went to another baker if the town was big enough.
I loved this part. No, she said, today's world of people are turning back into babies. A new century and we're not moving forward. We're moving into boxes, playpens, so we can whine and scream until someone gives us our pacifier of choice. And what do you mean there's no constitutional right guaranteeing we're not to be offended by someone else's beliefs?
Warning, whiner on board! Don't say something that may upset me. It could stunt my growth.
Oh, this woman was great. Then she said that today's newborn, that one brought into the world precisely at that moment, likely would never see 104 years of age. At least not as a mature independent free thinking self sustaining American.
One nation under a thumb.
That's the new American dream. Give it to me! So I don't have to think.
Love her. May she live another 104 just to be the perfect example of what America use to be.
The wolf killings really irk me. I'm glad I don't live in those zones or I'd likely camouflage and do some ground to air wolf-defense with a high powered rifle.
The rancher idiots are the real tisser. THEY'RE WOLVES! What ? You put an all you can eat walk through in their territory where they lived first and then get mad that they come to eat? Mutton anyone? Beef? Here you go.
It would be like someone bringing a Wendy's to a starving village in sub-Saharan Africa and getting all bent out of shape because they're robbed for their food regularly. They're starving! And your address has food. What's the big surprise?
I met a wolf hybrid once. North Carolina wolfie.
Enormous! He was 99%, near as you can get to full wolf. His dad bred wolf-hybrids to any percent anyone wanted. But he had a veterinarian that would work the paperwork so as to make the higher blood line within the legal limits for high wolf percentages.
I was so enthralled. This wolf was a big puppy. And all his mates at the dad's property howled when I walked in.
I felt right at home.
104! history walking and talking! I can almost put my finger on the moment the news changed and became 'what do you think? what do you think will happen?' instead of reporting facts. today, well, we know what it is. I am old enough to know a different world also.....the one where everyone actually called someone instead of texted them. not 104 though
yes every generation ... but things are changing faster now. I can honestly say this is not the world I grew up in.
life does not mean what it used to mean
I saw the wildee advert earlier and thought of you...also watched a stunning clip of a photographer who has gone up to the Arctic a number of times and he shoots both topside and underwater and all in 360 degrees so as he is talking and over the clip (about 6 mins) you can move your mouse over it as if you were looking around. the main focus of this shoot was the leopard seal...I would actually love to go up there or the Antarctic and stay over the winter...saw a docu on scientists who overwinter and the aurora and the stars...too much!
doubt that will happen unless I get there as a stowaway though
yeah the wolves...it is totally irresponsible...Canada as bad or worse...and the mustangs out west...my dad used to say it's a good thing we don't know half of what goes on. I don't know how God can stand it.
well we had 4 wolfdogs...saved the mom and dad...long story there...but I could tell she was a few wks pregnant and her mate was a full blooded Siberian...and big for the breed. anyway, my husband, first thing when he saw what I had in the back of the house...you're not keeping them..and we already had 3 dogs. the wolfie mom, pure white, blue eyes (she was part Siberian I figure since wolves do not have the blue eyes) had 7 pups...we were going to keep 1, which turned into 3 and mom and dad. the rest went to good homes but the thing is, you never know what you are getting...will they be more wolf or dog? the wolf genes are strong though
we now have 2...the sisters...10 yrs old...mom, dad and their brother all passed from different things. we did get another pure Siberian though...he's also big for the breed. and a ginger. I will say, you will never know how different these animals are from dogs. they stay a pack and their mother would have given her life for them...I will never have such beautiful and wild things again and so much love to go around. I really do believe God put them in my life the way everything worked out and they needed someone to save them. my husband? loved them dearly. that's what he got for being with me...haha...big animal lover
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
hmmmm
forget the other 65 books
how about Revelation...but then you may have left the thread
so it seems you do not then regard the Bible as having the same import on society today as binding, seeing the illogical connection to women's roles you make
no one needs your permission nor do we need to follow that manipulation in order to confirm what God says
and therein is the rub and the lack of example you might try to make
I wonder what you heard Dan...if you were to articulate other than hinting in a certain direction
I do not see anywhere in the word of God where the church is to openly support a sexual perversion. When a church makes one comfortable in their sin and supports the false narrative of the sin, they are doing a great disservice to the Very power which can and will set them free. that is abuse.
It's like in Genesis 19:11, they are groping around blindly trying to get in the door while the door is shut. Unashamed sinning with a high hand, even in the face of judgment.
Sounds like hogwash to me.
Culture can be WICKED or NEUTRAL.
Why didnt Lot just adapt to the culture he was around?
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
there are a myriad of ways the 'intent' of this op could have been discussed without bringing into it and making the main focus of it, homosexuals and intimating, in the end, that if you are going to *gasp* go so far as to literally believe God destroyed 2 cities over the sin of homsexuality, then you have to put a muzzle on your women too. maybe punch 'em down a bit
so sorry, but I'm not swallowing that one
maybe we should hear what pedophiles have to say also
so sorry, but I'm not swallowing that one
maybe we should hear what pedophiles have to say also
It is interesting that nothing is ever said about the command 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' yet in Matthew 5:27-28;
You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Yet the Gospel continues in Matthew 5:31-32
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
However one can't help but notice that whosoever divorces his wife, except for adultery causes he to be an adultress. And whosoever should married the divorced woman commits adultery even though she is given a writing of divorcement. That doesn't seem like a fair balance, or equity in judgement IMO.
You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Yet the Gospel continues in Matthew 5:31-32
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
However one can't help but notice that whosoever divorces his wife, except for adultery causes he to be an adultress. And whosoever should married the divorced woman commits adultery even though she is given a writing of divorcement. That doesn't seem like a fair balance, or equity in judgement IMO.
No that is a false narrative woman being silent in the church and homosexuality are not one in the same. you have a bizarre outlook on the word of God. Yet you speak of conservative people why? you seem to be liberal in your theology and supportive of an abusive sexual preference of homosexuality.
Lot was what the Apostle Paul would have called "carnal"
Yet the Apostle Peter called Lot "righteous" and said that he was vexed in his soul by the lawless deeds he saw around him day after day.
Yet the Apostle Peter called Lot "righteous" and said that he was vexed in his soul by the lawless deeds he saw around him day after day.
So, and this is actually a question, we could say that Lot was what today we'll call a "lukewarm christian"? Someone who wasn't as perverted as the people in Sodoma and Gomorrah, but didn't bother to ask the Lord where to live like Abraham did and just saw the beauty of the land?
I don't know if I expressed myself correctly, so sorry if I didn't. But you understand the idea
.Christ ate with the sinners. He did not do as them, but he did sit and eat with them. Christ allowed the Spirit of God to convict them.
But I find it difficult to believe that Christ would allow something He warned Adam (that man is for woman and woman is for man [help mate], not same with same)...I cannot see Christ accepting the foundations of this church (homosexual-bi-gay-INSANITY) knowing it is not built on 100% WORD of GOD!! He is the ONE who taught about building your homes on a solid foundation...and that church does not have that. Therefore, it is not of God according to scripture!!
There are a number of sins that are ignored over the seeming fixation some Christians have on the issue of homosexuality. Sexual immorality is actually the category of sin that would also include heterosexuals.
And don't forget Jesus' teaching the two greatest commands. The second of which is very often violated, a sin, and abused, a sin, by those professing Christ while defending their position on this exclusive sin topic;homosexuality.
Imagine some of the rhetoric that appears in just this thread on the topic by that which seems zealously overcome with fixation on just this one sin preaching from the pulpit. The exact words they use against some sisters and brothers here so as to bully their personal fixation on demeaning anyone of a different opinion about tolerance and love and allowing gays into a church building.
The sin abounds and yet it is overlooked because they're scornful of others because they're not able to love as Jesus commanded us to love. Love is its own scripture. But not for all who claim the name of Christ. What good would it do then for a gay sinner to sit in the pew of a church where a pastor such as that describe would speak to them about this particular sin?
What would be the chance that lost one would want to come to the Christ that such a pastor represents from that place of authority?
When someone teaches as a Christian or as someone claiming to be a minister, the words of Christ they're actually ministering to anyone who may be lost and seeking salvation. They are the example of what Christ means to a life renewed in the spirit.
Are you, the collective you, we, am I, a precious righteous example of living the love of God and his words of love? Or are you, we, I, a warning ?