- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:31 am to skrayper
quote:
but a standard a lot of people claiming to be Christian do little more than give lip service to.
Similar to liberal preening about refugees without ever donating their own time or money.
Set up a refugee charity and help these people if you guys are really concerned about their welfare. YOu don't have to wait for the government to do it.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:34 am to skrayper
quote:
According to the Christian faith, Jesus was the realization of the prophesies of the Old Testament, meaning they were no longer bound by the old law.
Sorry, but thats half the book. You're not dancing around that one just because the laws and Gods attitude appear a little angry and dated. If you wanna just put the new testament as a new religion I'll support it even more, but christianity is beginning and end of that book. Alpha and Omega. Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
This is my bread and butter so come at me bro.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:35 am to roadGator
They're actually comparing abortions to refugees and asking how you can be pro-life and anti-immigration... using dead children to support an agenda.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:38 am to skrayper
quote:
Christians who focus on the anti-homosexuality of the Bible over the treat others with kindness aspect are in essence Paulinites, not Christians.
Why are you confused when we love the sinner (all of us), but hate and condemn the sin?
Jesus's silence on homosexuality is not an endorsement. Jesus was a Jew, and Jewish teaching was homosexuality was a sin. Logic would indicate that his silence was acceptance of this view. He didn't seem to have problems speaking out against incorrect religious beliefs of his day.
Paul also a Jew didn't create a new category of sin. He reflected the belief of the religion. When he desired to change Jewish beliefs in the new Christian Church like circumcising converts and their dietary restrictions, he obtained Peter's permission. He wasn't the wild free agent you make him out to be!
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:38 am to Lawyered
Suddenly separation of church and state is a bad thing.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:40 am to roadGator
quote:
My church does everything it can to help avoid divorce. Counseling and prayer are pretty much the only tools you have by the time it's addressed at church. Most of us are indeed against divorce but realize that free will causes people to do things that are not preferrable and ultimately lead to divorce regardless of the help offered. Jesus would not want a married woman to stay married to an abusive alcoholic forever.
While I agree with you that Jesus would not desire for a woman to stay in an abusive relationship, I am simply referencing the literal statements within the Bible and making no assumptions as to what else would or would not be included.
It is safe to state that there are a LOT of times where everything was better for all parties involved (both spouses and the children) after the divorce. That said, however, there is no justification within the Bible for it. Matthew 19:9 is pretty clear: "I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
Matthew 19:3-6 is the reason he answered it:
quote:
3 a Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him,* saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” 4 * b He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5 c and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
My point is that if we are allowed interpretations, or allow for "changing times" when it comes to passages for divorce, then we must for others. Picking and choosing which parts of the Bible matter "more" because one has a direct impact on us (divorce) and other does not (homosexuality) is being dishonest to one's own faith.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:42 am to skrayper
quote:
God LITERALLY says in Malachi "I hate divorce."
So what is your argument, that He hates divorce more than sexual immorality (homosexuality)? Because that is false as well, study the story of Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Furthermore, one sin is no greater than the other. Not trying to be holier than thou, because I am far from it,but you're wrong on this point buddy.
And yes, divorce without proper cause is sin. Couldn't agree more, but one isn't more than the other. Jesus forgives all, thank God.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:42 am to roadGator
quote:
Similar to liberal preening about refugees without ever donating their own time or money.
Set up a refugee charity and help these people if you guys are really concerned about their welfare. YOu don't have to wait for the government to do it.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no doubt. If one individual cries out that you are not helping the poor, for example, and they themselves are not either, then they are a hypocrite. If your faith demands that you help the poor, but you choose not to, you are a hypocrite as well. One is a hypocrite in statement, the other in faith, but both are hypocrites all the same.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:45 am to skrayper
quote:
Jesus was the realization of the prophesies of the Old Testament,
Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The Lamb slain for the Passover in Exodus 12 is a foreshadow of what Jesus would be for all mankind. You can not separate the the two Testaments.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:48 am to olddawg26
quote:
Sorry, but thats half the book. You're not dancing around that one just because the laws and Gods attitude appear a little angry and dated.
quote:
If you wanna just put the new testament as a new religion I'll support it even more, but christianity is beginning and end of that book. Alpha and Omega. Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Fair enough, I am speaking in regards to how I was raised and taught. It goes into the accordance with Christians eating shell fish, or getting tattoos. All of these things were outlined as wrong within Leviticus, but I have not met a modern Christian in a large denomination who would even tell you that you shouldn't do it, not that it was a sin or such.
It all works from how one determines the place of Leviticus. Was Leviticus, as a book, an outline of everything evil and sinful? Or was it a book of laws because God looked out and thought, "until X has come to pass, it's probably a good idea I tell them not to eat that thing that could kill them if eaten improperly".
It's a matter of personal opinion and faith if you believe it was Option A or Option B.
Jesus, though, was the fulfillment of the Law. If he had abolished it, then they simply would have removed the Old Testament entirely. They did not; one needs to be able to read the Prophesy he was there to fulfill.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:48 am to Lg
quote:
Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The Lamb slain for the Passover in Exodus 12 is a foreshadow of what Jesus would be for all mankind. You can not separate the the two Testaments.
Truth.
Lots of great Biblical discussion in here btw.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:51 am to Lawyered
quote:
All my timeline is liberals/atheists quoting Old Testament bible verses about taking in refugees and things trying to guilt Christians however dismissing the clear stance it also takes against homosexuality .
This tactic is straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which says you must "make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." The left considers the Bible as the right's book of rules, and that's a pretty tough standard to live up to. The left has no such standards.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:53 am to roadGator
quote:
Trump has CNN seeking the truth and liberals turning to Jesus. It's amazing.
And they have become deficit hawks.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:53 am to Lawyered
What people on both sides of this debate are missing (RE: Jesus/Christianity) is that Jesus addressed individuals, not governments. ("render unto Caesar what is Caesar's...." and all that).
Christians who want the government to do the work of Christians are missing the point. You need to do what your faith compels you to do, not compel others to do what you think they ought to be doing. In a way, doing the latter is going against Luke 6:37 about judging others.
That being said, I see no problem with saying that refugees need to wait to be vetted before being let into this country. The government has an obligation to protect its citizens. Those who are believed to be a threat should not be let in.
As for the uproar over legal residents who traveled to the ME and are being held temporarily, keep in mind one of the Tsarnaev brothers traveled to Chechnya prior to the bombings and AFTER U. S. authorities had been alerted by Russian authorities that he may be a risk. Had he been detained, perhaps the Boston Marathon bombings would have been avoided.
Christians who want the government to do the work of Christians are missing the point. You need to do what your faith compels you to do, not compel others to do what you think they ought to be doing. In a way, doing the latter is going against Luke 6:37 about judging others.
That being said, I see no problem with saying that refugees need to wait to be vetted before being let into this country. The government has an obligation to protect its citizens. Those who are believed to be a threat should not be let in.
As for the uproar over legal residents who traveled to the ME and are being held temporarily, keep in mind one of the Tsarnaev brothers traveled to Chechnya prior to the bombings and AFTER U. S. authorities had been alerted by Russian authorities that he may be a risk. Had he been detained, perhaps the Boston Marathon bombings would have been avoided.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:54 am to skrayper
quote:
If your faith demands that you help the poor, but you choose not to, you are a hypocrite as well.
Except for that part where I do help the poor. Do I do enough to please God? Probably not. We can all do more. However, I don't preen about how others should be helping the poor. That would also be wrong according to God.
Perhaps your use of "you" was plural and not directed at me personally.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:54 am to Lg
I didn't say it had nothing to do with Christians, just little care.
Old testament stuff is negated by new testament stuff. Christians don't follow a lot of the laws in the old testament. I mean there's a lot of food rules Christians don't follow in the old testament as an example. The whole Jesus thing being a messiah. Etc.
Old testament stuff is negated by new testament stuff. Christians don't follow a lot of the laws in the old testament. I mean there's a lot of food rules Christians don't follow in the old testament as an example. The whole Jesus thing being a messiah. Etc.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:54 am to skrayper
quote:
A lot of things are a sin according to the Bible. Jesus held much stronger convictions against divorce than he did against homosexuality. To Jesus, being divorced meant you are living in constant sin (because there was only one justification for divorce, and if you did not have that, it meant both parties were now adulterers).
Jesus was modifying the traditional Jewish view of divorce. And if a divorced person doesn't engage in sexual acts with a non spouse, they are not adulterers. I am unaware of his modification of the sinfulness of practicing homosexual acts.
Help me to understand your statement that Jesus held much stronger convictions agains divorce over homosexuality.
This post was edited on 1/30/17 at 9:04 am
Posted on 1/30/17 at 8:58 am to skrayper
quote:
My point is that if we are allowed interpretations, or allow for "changing times" when it comes to passages for divorce, then we must for others. Picking and choosing which parts of the Bible matter "more" because one has a direct impact on us (divorce) and other does not (homosexuality) is being dishonest to one's own faith.
Good post and is exactly why I try to refrain from pointing out another's sin. Ultimately, that is beteween the sinner and God. Men don't have this figured out perfectly. I can admit that. It's really up to the individual to do the best he can and try to get better every day.
This is a great thread to personally remind me of this challenge that I too often fail at daily.
Back to focusing on this stupid report for work and then a quick bible study on the treadmill at lunch.
Thanks for the reminder.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 9:08 am to roadGator
quote:
Ultimately, that is beteween the sinner and God. Men don't have this figured out perfectly.
I agree to an extent. How does one show love? If your best friend come to you and tells you he is about to rob a bank, will you tell him not to? If a complete stranger tells you the same thing, do you give him the same answer? Are you judging either one, who is about to break the law?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News