LOVE IS fULFILLING THE LAW OF GOD BUT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU MAY IGNORE GOD'S LAW

  • 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.
The law was put in place to set a people of Melchizedeks authority (which was all, as there were neither jew nor gentile) apart to be holy. Without the law you don't know what standard makes something Holy. Then of the holy people the holiest of the holies became manifest and lived and walked on earth. The Church of CHrist's on earth is established in the Order of Melchizedek. In that order, there were no jews, gentiles, nor laws. TO impose the laws on a Church that is past them, is to superimpose your thoughts of CHrist's and prophecy about how the Church should be ran.

The change in the law Paul mentions there is NOT being under the law that was entered with circumcision.

The change went to the Psalm 110, priest forever of the order of Melchizedek, I've mentioned several times.

The impact to that is no jew or gentile. And not only was there no such thing as a Jew or Gentile in Mel's day, there was a comment from Paul saying IN HIM there is no Jew nor Gentile as well. Full corroboration.

So, if Mel had no laws, nor Jews.

Christ's priesthood is like Mels.

Why do people keep trying to impose jewish laws on that Church?

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

The meat eating man who wasn't sinning, had freedom to eat the meat because he had more faith.

If you live under the law, you spit on Grace and are judged under the law.

But people on here keep trying to teach, "you must keep the law". I don't get it. That's no different than all the heretics and ANti Christ's that Paul and John addressed.

I only choose one way, one truth, one life in Christ. I am free in God's Spirit to do what God calls me to do and say what God says for me to say. One thing is to let others be if they are not harming others.
Ex: see a pedophile, do something if in the act. See stealing do something. But only as God leads
All in Love to you
 
If you don't have the works, you don't agapao. If you don't agapao you don't know God and He's not in you and you aren't in Him. Those are straight scripture paraphrases. ANd they do not say works save you. They say if you are saved you will have the works. If you don't see the works, then perhaps you did something wrong and aren't there yet. Perhaps those who find themselves there, argue about works because they try to justify being what they know they aren't?

Even if it can be proven that one can agape apart from God? That sinful humans can agape other humans? Thought one of your arguments is that agape does not equal God's love? You say this is "straight scripture paraphrases", yet Scripture can prove otherwise. Again, Tannar, not only do you say that agape can mean rape, but now, you are saying something is scriptural when it can be scripturally proven otherwise.

I remember you saying something along the lines that changing a word's meaning is okay. How far shall you fall?
 
The law was put in place to set a people of Melchizedeks authority (which was all, as there were neither jew nor gentile) apart to be holy. Without the law you don't know what standard makes something Holy. Then of the holy people the holiest of the holies became manifest and lived and walked on earth. The Church of CHrist's on earth is established in the Order of Melchizedek. In that order, there were no jews, gentiles, nor laws. TO impose the laws on a Church that is past them, is to superimpose your thoughts of CHrist's and prophecy about how the Church should be ran.

The change in the law Paul mentions there is NOT being under the law that was entered with circumcision.

The change went to the Psalm 110, priest forever of the order of Melchizedek, I've mentioned several times.

The impact to that is no jew or gentile. And not only was there no such thing as a Jew or Gentile in Mel's day, there was a comment from Paul saying IN HIM there is no Jew nor Gentile as well. Full corroboration.

So, if Mel had no laws, nor Jews.

Christ's priesthood is like Mels.

Why do people keep trying to impose jewish laws on that Church?

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

The meat eating man who wasn't sinning, had freedom to eat the meat because he had more faith.

If you live under the law, you spit on Grace and are judged under the law.

But people on here keep trying to teach, "you must keep the law". I don't get it. That's no different than all the heretics and ANti Christ's that Paul and John addressed.

Would you steal from your neighbor?

Would you curse God?

Would you purposely do bad to another?

Would you hate?
 
You misunderstood what was being said concerning rape. The point is about those who commit rape, NOT those who view porn and not commit rape. The entire point was those who commit rape, do indeed view porn. i never indicated that those who view porn commit rape, that is not what i said at all. Only saying that a very high percentage of those who commit sex crimes, do indeed view pornography.

what was your need to make a point, that has NO REASON then? You made a point that those who commit rape view porn. You just deliberately linked the two together. THEN you wish to reemphasize that people committing sex crimes view pornography. So, if you aren't trying to indicate porn is tied to rape, why did you tie them together?

Your statements here, make it seem as if you dropped some random observation into a chat for NO REASON AT ALL. I think you try to dodge a bullet here with pedantics.

There is no need to defend porn, it is evil and wicked, and it is not Godly. Anyone who continues to look at porn and does not cease from it, will not be taken up with the Church when it is Raptured to be with Jesus.
As will those usurping his throne of judgement while alive on earth instead of reserving that role for Him.

God sent me to live at a Monastery, after living with the monks for two weeks, i was kicked out of that monastery. Apparently most of the monks there deemed it OK to look at playboy magazines. When i found this out, i knew then why God sent me there. i told them all, that if they continued to lust after women in the magazines, that they would not be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven.

How do you know they lusted? I mean, I'm sure some did, but how can YOU condemn them? I could look at them without lusting. Just about ANY DOCTOR could as well. It's a human body. It may be beautiful, or horribly flawed, it is still just a body. Appreciating the beauty of a woman isn't a sin. NOW GRANTED I'm feeling smug in saying most looking at it are NOT just observing the beauty God put on earth, but, rather are lusting. But, not necessarily.

Notice how you saw people doing something that would have been an issue for YOU, this lusting of women, which you obviously battle with and try to avoid any chance to lust after them, and impose YOUR sin fears on them? Sir, Who made you God?

Two men ate meat. One it was a sin, the other it wasn't. They lived under the same "laws" of faith. It was the same act. The one with the greater faith, had the liberty to eat the meat. It's funny, you were the one denying liberty here, yet, apparently YOU are the one that felt it was a sin, and was on the lesser faith side of the story.

The story teaches the two should not go get in each other's faces. Yet you chose the opposite. So you forsook scripture, and God's teaching to do what you felt you wanted/needed/should do. Perhaps you were sent there to learn more faith, and you failed. They didn't do things like you did, so you condemned them.

That is exactly against scripture. YET you feel more holy for doing it. Doesn't that remind you of that verse that says,.... test those spirits.....? Yours took you away from scripture.

Instead of repenting and getting rid of the magazines, they got rid of me. But i did what i was instructed to do, and i warned them.

So, God instructs you to do things against the Bible's teachings. What you did was the equivalent of Gideon calling the army back, re arming them and charging with weapons and shields instead of 300 with crock pots and bugles. You took judgement into your own hands, and concluded most self righteously that you were doing God's work and did what God instructed NOT TO DO, but you did it for HIM. AND NOW you use that story to show me how much holier you are. :)

Even as i warn all those who read this as well, if you continue to look at pornography and lusting via that pornography, you likewise will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, because you are not willing to give up that stuff for Jesus Christ. You put that, before Him.
^i^

And I will tell everyone, if you wanna know why you have such a hard time witnessing to people and getting them to listen, it's because most of the Church takes GOD'S job into their own hands and judges man on earth. A THING EVEN JESUS THE CHRIST said HE could not do. And when their actions, which they defend loudly and proudly, go against the book they claim to represent, the whole faith becomes farcical. And every person of the faith who comes to them later, is assumed to be the same person as the one who was loudest and proudest.

You make the comment
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by DiscipleDave Reap what you sow.

If we sow to the flesh (porn for example) then we will reap corruption of the flesh.

^i^


WHIch shows you did indeed tie porn, to other corruptions of the flesh, which you mention later as rapists, and... pedophiles? or molesters? Or Child Porn to Child molestors??? I think it was the last one.

So you prevaricate.

I'm not much for avoiding being questioned for my behavior by claiming I didn't do what is evident I did.
 
Even if it can be proven that one can agape apart from God? That sinful humans can agape other humans? Thought one of your arguments is that agape does not equal God's love? You say this is "straight scripture paraphrases", yet Scripture can prove otherwise. Again, Tannar, not only do you say that agape can mean rape, but now, you are saying something is scriptural when it can be scripturally proven otherwise.

I remember you saying something along the lines that changing a word's meaning is okay. How far shall you fall?

Hi Tannar. In case you missed this......
 
Hi Tannar. In case you missed this......

Agape is definitely God's love for us.

But God's love is not agape.


Ice is definitely water.

But water doesn't do the same thing as ice.

The word Agape was used long before the Bible's NT letters were written, and it was used without context to God.

As I've answered things with you before in detail that you disregarded and later said I never answered, I'm not investing time in you. Get off your lazy, argumentative, obsessive behind, and go do the research. IF YOU NEED HELP FINDING TOOLS, I will assist. But the time for me doing your work for you is over unFRIEND.

BTW you never gave an explanation for how a man could agape ungodly things, if agape is GOD'S LOVE. That's oxymoronic. And I gave you that verse too.

(1 Corinthians 13:1–8),
is Agapao, or forms thereof. It's often translated as charity. Because the word is used to denote more than affection but action on the affection.

John 3:16 shows the word to have action. Proven by God giving His Son as proof of that love.

There is no greater love than that one lay down his life for another. <<<<<< another example where it has action.

Jesus taught about love. AN example/parable of love is the last parable in matt 25. Why did the people who did the works, go on with the shepherd, and the others, who truly knew him, but didn't do the works did not? Because they had Phileo, but not yet agapao.

Agapao = affection that is coupled with an action.
It's used for husband and wife sex.
it's used for incestual sex. both have an action, thus are true to the definition of the word.

It's also used for God's love, in matthew 5, also demonstrated with an action, providing for His Enemies. Jesus used this example, of love, one specifically from GOD and specifically with actions to exemplify how we are to love.

You want to draw urine lines in the snow to see who has a right to a definition here. I could care less. Believe what you want. It's your soul, that is your right. But stop teaching an empty cliche of a definition that dirties up the truth of the scriptures. Allow people a chance, to get their arms around the greater meaning to see how much greater His love for us is, and how much greater His expectations for and from us are.


 
You misunderstood what was being said concerning rape. The point is about those who commit rape, NOT those who view porn and not commit rape. The entire point was those who commit rape, do indeed view porn. i never indicated that those who view porn commit rape, that is not what i said at all. Only saying that a very high percentage of those who commit sex crimes, do indeed view pornography. There is no need to defend porn, it is evil and wicked, and it is not Godly. Anyone who continues to look at porn and does not cease from it, will not be taken up with the Church when it is Raptured to be with Jesus.
God sent me to live at a Monastery, after living with the monks for two weeks, i was kicked out of that monastery. Apparently most of the monks there deemed it OK to look at playboy magazines. When i found this out, i knew then why God sent me there. i told them all, that if they continued to lust after women in the magazines, that they would not be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven. Instead of repenting and getting rid of the magazines, they got rid of me. But i did what i was instructed to do, and i warned them. Even as i warn all those who read this as well, if you continue to look at pornography and lusting via that pornography, you likewise will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, because you are not willing to give up that stuff for Jesus Christ. You put that, before Him.

^i^

AND: your obedience is thus therefore perfect
2 Corinthians 10:6 and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.

Tell what is stronger, Conviction as you are doing here, or MERCY?
 
Agape is definitely God's love for us. But God's love is not agape. Ice is definitely water. But water doesn't do the same thing as ice.
You said, "God's love for us is agape, but God's love is not agape..." Scripture says, "1Jn 4:8 He that agapes not knows not (absolute negative) God; for God is agape".

If it says that if one would not be agaping [color="#ooooFF"](present particple)[/color], then they absolutely had not known[color="#ooooFF"] (2 aorist indicative = past action with results)[/color] God and explains: because God is (present indicative = the very now with every indication of it continuing into the future unless stopped) agape, then it would seem that God's love is agape, because He is agape. If not agape, then what? Eros? Phileo? His love must be one of them.

The word Agape was used long before the Bible's NT letters were written, and it was used without context to God.

As I've answered things with you before in detail that you disregarded and later said I never answered, I'm not investing time in you. Get off your lazy, argumentative, obsessive behind, and go do the research. IF YOU NEED HELP FINDING TOOLS, I will assist. But the time for me doing your work for you is over unFRIEND.
But, it is you who is making declarations without prove. I went and searched what you said and came back empty-handed. You told me to go to Pluto and I did and I still came back empty-handed. You say there is prove, but I have yet to find any. You see the delimma?

You say that you will help me find tools for my quest, I publicly ask for those tools.

BTW you never gave an explanation for how a man could agape ungodly things, if agape is GOD'S LOVE. That's oxymoronic. And I gave you that verse too.
I have maintained that agape is "the love of esteem" and even gave a difinition to assert that. It is the same love by which God loves His Son, the world. I have also said that God is able to even phileo. Nevertheless, here are examples of man agaping apart from God: (Mat 6:24, Luk 16:13)(Luk 7:41-47)(Luk 7:5)(Luk 11:43, Joh 12:43)(Joh 3:18-19)(2Ti 4:10)(1Pe 3:10)(2Pe 2:15)(1Jn 2:15)(Rev 12:11)(Mat 24:12).

(1 Corinthians 13:1–8),
is Agapao, or forms thereof. It's often translated as charity. Because the word is used to denote more than affection but action on the affection.

John 3:16 shows the word to have action. Proven by God giving His Son as proof of that love.

There is no greater love than that one lay down his life for another. <<<<<< another example where it has action.

Jesus taught about love. AN example/parable of love is the last parable in matt 25. Why did the people who did the works, go on with the shepherd, and the others, who truly knew him, but didn't do the works did not? Because they had Phileo, but not yet agapao.

Agapao = affection that is coupled with an action.
Of coarse, agape (G26) has a verb (G25)

It's used for husband and wife sex. it's used for incestual sex. both have an action, thus are true to the definition of the word.
Examples besides Amnon's example in 2 Samual 13, seeing that DEBASE (G5013) was used for rape and it was shown that debase was meant in the Law for consentual/forced sexed and that those who debased their neighbor's wife was to be stoned to death because of that debasing. It was also shown how once a man entered into a woman, it was called debase (G5013)?

I cannot find any other example of where agape can mean consentual/rape: forced and incestual. Not once at all.

It's also used for God's love, in matthew 5, also demonstrated with an action, providing for His Enemies. Jesus used this example, of love, one specifically from GOD and specifically with actions to exemplify how we are to love.
Can you show me where it is said something like: You are to stone them...the man...because he agaped his neighbor's wife. Or, if you entered into your wife and later decide that you do not want her, you cannot sell her because you agaped her? But, in both instances, it says debased (G5013) her.

You want to draw urine lines in the snow to see who has a right to a definition here. I could care less. Believe what you want. It's your soul, that is your right. But stop teaching an empty cliche of a definition that dirties up the truth of the scriptures. Allow people a chance, to get their arms around the greater meaning to see how much greater His love for us is, and how much greater His expectations for and from us are.

You say that agape can mean rape (yeah yeah...incestual rape (like there is even a difference)) and you want to say that I am dirtying up the truth. Really?

You say give people a chance to get their arms around the greater meaning.....Tannar, what will we change next? Quickening? Are you not the one who said that the Bible is not a dictionary to define itself in another thread? How far shall we fall?
 
You said, "God's love for us is agape, but God's love is not agape..." Scripture says, "1Jn 4:8 He that agapes not knows not (absolute negative) God; for God is agape".

If it says that if one would not be agaping [COLOR=#ooooFF](present particple)[/COLOR], then they absolutely had not known[COLOR=#ooooFF] (2 aorist indicative = past action with results)[/COLOR] God and explains: because God is (present indicative = the very now with every indication of it continuing into the future unless stopped) agape, then it would seem that God's love is agape, because He is agape. If not agape, then what? Eros? Phileo? His love must be one of them.


But, it is you who is making declarations without prove. I went and searched what you said and came back empty-handed. You told me to go to Pluto and I did and I still came back empty-handed. You say there is prove, but I have yet to find any. You see the delimma?

You say that you will help me find tools for my quest, I publicly ask for those tools.


I have maintained that agape is "the love of esteem" and even gave a difinition to assert that. It is the same love by which God loves His Son, the world. I have also said that God is able to even phileo. Nevertheless, here are examples of man agaping apart from God: (Mat 6:24, Luk 16:13)(Luk 7:41-47)(Luk 7:5)(Luk 11:43, Joh 12:43)(Joh 3:18-19)(2Ti 4:10)(1Pe 3:10)(2Pe 2:15)(1Jn 2:15)(Rev 12:11)(Mat 24:12).

Of coarse, agape (G26) has a verb (G25)


Examples besides Amnon's example in 2 Samual 13, seeing that DEBASE (G5013) was used for rape and it was shown that debase was meant in the Law for consentual/forced sexed and that those who debased their neighbor's wife was to be stoned to death because of that debasing. It was also shown how once a man entered into a woman, it was called debase (G5013)?

I cannot find any other example of where agape can mean consentual/rape: forced and incestual. Not once at all.

Can you show me where it is said something like: You are to stone them...the man...because he agaped his neighbor's wife. Or, if you entered into your wife and later decide that you do not want her, you cannot sell her because you agaped her? But, in both instances, it says debased (G5013) her.



You say that agape can mean rape (yeah yeah...incestual rape (like there is even a difference)) and you want to say that I am dirtying up the truth. Really?

You say give people a chance to get their arms around the greater meaning.....Tannar, what will we change next? Quickening? Are you not the one who said that the Bible is not a dictionary to define itself in another thread? How far shall we fall?


the word AGAPE has a definition that supersedes the "god's love" myth you impose on it. I have given you sources. Your argument is they are wrong.

Agape is the word to describe God's love. We agree on that.

But Agape has more definition to it than "God's Love". Before the NT was written the word was used.

You have the means to go and study it.

Instead you fight to save face and thus split hairs and make an embarrassing, for you, mess of things.

GOD'S LOVE is a love of AGAPE.

But saying that AGAPE is ONLY GOD'S LOVE, is a lie and a farce. The word has more to the meaning, than just your pet phrase.

NEWS FLASH, the GREEK LANGUAGE Existed before the NT was written. That word was used before as well.
 
TannarDarr (me = red) the word AGAPE has a definition that supersedes the "god's love" myth you impose on it. I have given you sources. Your argument is they are wrong. (Although 2 Samuel 13 and Pluto, you pointed me to as a source, does not use agape for rape or incestual rape?)

Agape is the word to describe God's love. We agree on that.

But Agape has more definition to it than "God's Love". Before the NT was written the word was used. (And in my search, there were no results which says that agape can mean rape. Not ONE INSTANCE)

You have the means to go and study it. (BUT BUT you said you would give me those sources. Sorry I took your word for it.)

Instead you fight to save face and thus split hairs and make an embarrassing, for you, mess of things. (not in the least embarrassed, seeing that I am being a good steward and going out seeking Truth. You are making absolute statements and expect others to just accept what you say without doubt.)

GOD'S LOVE is a love of AGAPE. (God is AGAPE. How many agapes are there?)

But saying that AGAPE is ONLY GOD'S LOVE, is a lie and a farce. (So, stop saying it. Because I am not saying it. You insist that I say that AGAPE is only God's love even when I showed you that man can agape apart from God.)

The word has more to the meaning, than just your pet phrase. (and rape (bah tired of this: incestual rape) is one of them? It seems you are forgetting that 2 Samual said ABASE for rape.)

NEWS FLASH, the GREEK LANGUAGE Existed before the NT was written. That word was used before as well. (AND EXAMPLES? The example of Pluto is mute, seeing that he was speaking about eros (erotic))
 
You misunderstood what was being said concerning rape. The point is about those who commit rape, NOT those who view porn and not commit rape. The entire point was those who commit rape, do indeed view porn. i never indicated that those who view porn commit rape, that is not what i said at all. Only saying that a very high percentage of those who commit sex crimes, do indeed view pornography.

what was your need to make a point, that has NO REASON then? You made a point that those who commit rape view porn. You just deliberately linked the two together. THEN you wish to reemphasize that people committing sex crimes view pornography. So, if you aren't trying to indicate porn is tied to rape, why did you tie them together?

Your statements here, make it seem as if you dropped some random observation into a chat for NO REASON AT ALL. I think you try to dodge a bullet here with pedantics.

i was talking with another who made the comment that it would be better for people to view porn, then to actually go out and commit crimes, to which i responded to that person, that those who commit sex crimes, viewed pornography. That did not stop them from committing the crimes. Then you stepped in the conversation, saying that i said all people who look at porn commit rape. To which i responded to you then, and am now responding to you.

God sent me to live at a Monastery, after living with the monks for two weeks, i was kicked out of that monastery. Apparently most of the monks there deemed it OK to look at playboy magazines. When i found this out, i knew then why God sent me there. i told them all, that if they continued to lust after women in the magazines, that they would not be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven.

How do you know they lusted? I mean, I'm sure some did, but how can YOU condemn them? I could look at them without lusting. Just about ANY DOCTOR could as well. It's a human body. It may be beautiful, or horribly flawed, it is still just a body. Appreciating the beauty of a woman isn't a sin. NOW GRANTED I'm feeling smug in saying most looking at it are NOT just observing the beauty God put on earth, but, rather are lusting. But, not necessarily.

i know they lusted, because they all masturbated to the magazines, i did not condemn them, but He who lives in me condemned them for the lusting they did via the naked women in the magazines. OH just so you know, i never said anything at all about them having the magazines, what i said was their lusting was against God and they should cease to do that wicked thing. Was that OK by you?

Notice how you saw people doing something that would have been an issue for YOU, this lusting of women, which you obviously battle with and try to avoid any chance to lust after them, and impose YOUR sin fears on them? Sir, Who made you God?

The devil has told you that it is an issue for me. For it is not an issue with me. Pray to God that you start discerning who you are believing. You say i obviously battle with lust, How so? Because i told them they should not lust? Lol It usually is contrary to that. Preachers who view porn, usually don't condemn porn, then usually will not preach on the very thing they enjoy doing. Preachers who have wives who wear the pants in the family, don't preach concerning roles of Husbands and Wives. Lol, because i tell them they should not lust, i then according to you, have a lust issue, lol, you made me laugh, that it too funny.

Two men ate meat. One it was a sin, the other it wasn't. They lived under the same "laws" of faith. It was the same act. The one with the greater faith, had the liberty to eat the meat. It's funny, you were the one denying liberty here, yet, apparently YOU are the one that felt it was a sin, and was on the lesser faith side of the story.

i don't say it is a sin. God does. You know that lusting is a sin right? or is your voice telling you that it is OK to lust after naked women who are not your spouse, and that is OK?

The story teaches the two should not go get in each other's faces. Yet you chose the opposite. So you forsook scripture, and God's teaching to do what you felt you wanted/needed/should do. Perhaps you were sent there to learn more faith, and you failed. They didn't do things like you did, so you condemned them.

lol, you must be a young person. Are you saying that monks masturbating to Playboy Magazines, is not wrong or against God? Is that what you are saying? And your upset with me, because i addressed that wicked thing they were doing? What i did was Good and Godly, but you say otherwise, why is that?

That is exactly against scripture. YET you feel more holy for doing it. Doesn't that remind you of that verse that says,.... test those spirits.....? Yours took you away from scripture.

lol, i told them to stop lusting after the magazine, and you say i wrong for saying to stop lusting. lol. When you have read the Bible over 80 times, maybe then you will have some understanding of the Word of God. Who told you i feel more Holy for doing it? i never said that, that comes from you and your own thinking, which is in error, For i have never thought i was Holy because i do that which i am told to do. Is it not written that if you do Good all the time, you are only doing what you are suppose to do. It does not make one Holy because they do that which they are told to do. A person is Holy through Jesus Christ who helps them to overcome sin in their life.

Instead of repenting and getting rid of the magazines, they got rid of me. But i did what i was instructed to do, and i warned them.

So, God instructs you to do things against the Bible's teachings.

Heavens no, God instructed me to go there. i did, and when i seen that most of those monks were lusting and masturbating to playboy magazines, i then brought it to their attention that lusting and masturbating to those magazines was against God, and they should cease to do so. What then? You would have done differently, please tell what you would have done, if God led you there, and you seen that wickedness was going on there, what would you have done, NOTHING, maybe, Or would you say something, when the Holy Ghost is telling you to warn them against that sin. What would you do? Because apparently what i did, through God, is not what you would have done, so then pray tell, what would you have done to try to help them cease from a sin that will prevent them from entering into the Kingdom of Heaven.

What you did was the equivalent of Gideon calling the army back, re arming them and charging with weapons and shields instead of 300 with crock pots and bugles. You took judgement into your own hands, and concluded most self righteously that you were doing God's work and did what God instructed NOT TO DO, but you did it for HIM. AND NOW you use that story to show me how much holier you are. :)

i will pray for you, that you receive the Holy Ghost, so that you too will have the desire to help people to cease from doing things that will prevent them from going to Heaven. If you see somebody committing a sin, and they are not ceasing from it, and you know it will prevent them from going to Heaven, if you loved them, you would say something to them, if you did not love them, you would say nothing at all. This generation says nothing at all to those who continue to live in sins, because they do not love them, if they did, they would warn them to cease from whatever it is they are doing, so they can go to Heaven. i will pray for you to receive the Holy Spirit of God.

Even as i warn all those who read this as well, if you continue to look at pornography and lusting via that pornography, you likewise will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, because you are not willing to give up that stuff for Jesus Christ. You put that, before Him.

And I will tell everyone, if you wanna know why you have such a hard time witnessing to people and getting them to listen, it's because most of the Church takes GOD'S job into their own hands and judges man on earth. A THING EVEN JESUS THE CHRIST said HE could not do. And when their actions, which they defend loudly and proudly, go against the book they claim to represent, the whole faith becomes farcical. And every person of the faith who comes to them later, is assumed to be the same person as the one who was loudest and proudest.

You do error in thinking it is me that is doing the judging, it is the Word of God that is doing the judging. i judge nothing, but what the Word of God says is sinful, is sinful. So then if i tell a person if they continue to have a sexual relationship with another, not being married to them, they commit fornication. i am not the one judging them, but the Word of God is judging them, because it is plainly written that no fornicator shall inherit the Kingdom of God. i don't say they will not enter into Heaven, the Word of God says they will not enter into Heaven, therefore it is not me who is judging them not going to Heaven, but the Word of God plainly teaches they will not go to Heaven. So then because i love that person and want that person to go to Heaven, so i will say to that person, please stop fornicating, because if you don't, you will not go to Heaven according to the Word of God. i loved those monks, if i didn't, i would have said nothing at all, and just let them continue to live in their sins. But because i love them, i warned them to stop doing those things that are displeasing to God. Yet you disagree with what i did, what does that say?

Again, Truly i will pray for you, i fear you are not listening to the Holy Ghost, if you were, then you would know that what i am saying is from Him.

^i^
 
Brother Dave,

Tannar is like that....very assuming....just don't ask him to define words.....
 
i was talking with another who made the comment that it would be better for people to view porn, then to actually go out and commit crimes, to which i responded to that person, that those who commit sex crimes, viewed pornography. That did not stop them from committing the crimes. Then you stepped in the conversation, saying that i said all people who look at porn commit rape. To which i responded to you then, and am now responding to you.

the bold is a lie. People when they get caught in something they don't want to be caught at tend to lie. You just lied.

I understood the conversation just fine. I'm just not letting you prevaricate an alternative reality here.

I gave detailed reasoning to why I pointed it out. You have not answered the direct comments. SO I won't do it again, as you disrespect me to cover your own rear. The reasons are there for all to study. You tied porn and rape together, either for no reason or for a reason. If for no reason, you play a dangerous game and mislead people with your silly tangential soliloquies.

There was no reason to bring up child molesting in the conversation, you directly tied it to porn. I MADE THE POINT, that most people that look at porn are not child molesters. You failed to see that this made your comment look rather dense. So you try to posture at my expense. I gotta tell you, you guys and your slashing, dodging, evading, lying, prevaricating, fascist theology will wear a man out.





i know they lusted, because they all masturbated to the magazines, i did not condemn them, but He who lives in me condemned them for the lusting they did via the naked women in the magazines.

Ummm, any doctor will tell you that you don't need "lust" to do that. While I agree that was most likely the case for most of them, you don't know who or what. Now I'm more interested in why you were watching them masturbate to playboys?

OH just so you know, i never said anything at all about them having the magazines, what i said was their lusting was against God and they should cease to do that wicked thing. Was that OK by you?
You are right, you didn't bring up playboys at all. :| DO YOU THINK PEOPLE CAN'T FLIP BACK TO CALL YOU ON THAT????





The devil has told you that it is an issue for me. For it is not an issue with me.

You'll stop at nothing, right? Next you'll be trying to do deliverance on me, after all I must be possessed I don't agree with you.
You obsessed over what they did in their private time. Did you watch them defecate and count the toilet paper squares they sued too? How many other personal things did you invade?

WHy are you not addressing the key points to my comment? more evasion?

Pray to God that you start discerning who you are believing. You say i obviously battle with lust, How so? Because i told them they should not lust? Lol It usually is contrary to that. Preachers who view porn, usually don't condemn porn, then usually will not preach on the very thing they enjoy doing. Preachers who have wives who wear the pants in the family, don't preach concerning roles of Husbands and Wives. Lol, because i tell them they should not lust, i then according to you, have a lust issue, lol, you made me laugh, that it too funny.

You are a narcissistic waste of pixels. Because I call you on your bs, you are GOD GRANTED RIGHT, and I need prayers.

Go have some more koolaid. You have no value in a real conversation.
 
RE: LOVE IS fULFILLING THE LAW OF GOD BUT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU MAY IGNORE GOD'S LAW

Romans 3:31, "Are we then doing away with the Law through the faith? By no means! Rather, we establish the Law!"
 
the bold is a lie. People when they get caught in something they don't want to be caught at tend to lie. You just lied.

I understood the conversation just fine. I'm just not letting you prevaricate an alternative reality here.

I gave detailed reasoning to why I pointed it out. You have not answered the direct comments. SO I won't do it again, as you disrespect me to cover your own rear. The reasons are there for all to study. You tied porn and rape together, either for no reason or for a reason. If for no reason, you play a dangerous game and mislead people with your silly tangential soliloquies.

There was no reason to bring up child molesting in the conversation, you directly tied it to porn. I MADE THE POINT, that most people that look at porn are not child molesters. You failed to see that this made your comment look rather dense. So you try to posture at my expense. I gotta tell you, you guys and your slashing, dodging, evading, lying, prevaricating, fascist theology will wear a man out.







Ummm, any doctor will tell you that you don't need "lust" to do that. While I agree that was most likely the case for most of them, you don't know who or what. Now I'm more interested in why you were watching them masturbate to playboys?

You are right, you didn't bring up playboys at all. :| DO YOU THINK PEOPLE CAN'T FLIP BACK TO CALL YOU ON THAT????







You'll stop at nothing, right? Next you'll be trying to do deliverance on me, after all I must be possessed I don't agree with you.
You obsessed over what they did in their private time. Did you watch them defecate and count the toilet paper squares they sued too? How many other personal things did you invade?

WHy are you not addressing the key points to my comment? more evasion?



You are a narcissistic waste of pixels. Because I call you on your bs, you are GOD GRANTED RIGHT, and I need prayers.

Go have some more koolaid. You have no value in a real conversation.

Very xian of you. Try some Christ in your walk....surely you won't say Christ would talk like you do.....
 
RE: LOVE IS fULFILLING THE LAW OF GOD BUT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU MAY IGNORE GOD'S LAW

Romans 3:31, "Are we then doing away with the Law through the faith? By no means! Rather, we establish the Law!"

What I established is that it keeps me under the curse being in unredeemed flesh that is
[h=3]Romans 7[/h]Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

7 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? [SUP]2 [/SUP]For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. [SUP]3 [/SUP]So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. [SUP]4 [/SUP]Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. [SUP]5 [/SUP]For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. [SUP]6 [/SUP]But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
 
I guess the real question is - are you under the Law? If you are led by the Spirit then you are not under the law - Galatians 5:16-18 - Will you under the Spirit love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength - and love your neighbor as yourself - yes, and if not the Holy Spirit will convict you

If you really struggle with having to be under the law read the entire book of Galatians
 
  • Like
Reactions: zone
I guess the real question is - are you under the Law? If you are led by the Spirit then you are not under the law - Galatians 5:16-18 - Will you under the Spirit love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength - and love your neighbor as yourself - yes, and if not the Holy Spirit will convict you

If you really struggle with having to be under the law read the entire book of Galatians
The problem is that people don't understand what it means to be led of the Spirit.