-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Do you eat pork?
- Thread starter Xeno.of.athens
- Start date
I do not think God was being a bully when he told the people to abstain from eating pork. In my early twenties I was a very think young man with great health. Having moved to Virginia I was introduced to biscuits and gravy (sausage gravy). With some of our local restaurants I don't believe they throw away their sausage grease after the mornings breakfast. I believe they use it to make the afternoon French Fries. Also, here in Virginia in its time, very little of the pig was thrown away. They made use of it all. Even frying pork brains was a traditional culinary practice.
After that kind of diet it did not take long for me to gain weight and see the bottom blood pressure number rise from 60 to 90. If I could go back in time I would have abstained from eating pork all together.
After that kind of diet it did not take long for me to gain weight and see the bottom blood pressure number rise from 60 to 90. If I could go back in time I would have abstained from eating pork all together.
Upvote
0
- Jun 12, 2020
- 15,968
- 6,083
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
So you have repeatedly stated the NT is silent about permission to eat unclean foods, You then point to the Catechism to show its okay. May I ask the point you're trying to make. Are you saying protestants who do so, is because the Catholic church teaches its okay.
Just curious how you guys reconcile these Scriptures.
Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!
Isa 66:16 For by fire and by His sword
The Lord will judge all flesh;
And the slain of the Lord shall be many.
17 “Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves,
To go to the gardens
[a]After an idol in the midst,
Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse,
Shall be consumed together,” says the Lord.
Rev 21:22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine [l]in it, for the [m]glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. 24 And the nations [n]of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor [o]into it. 25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). 26 And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into [p]it. 27 But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
Upvote
0
- Apr 18, 2020
- 3,068
- 809
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes, this is true. You too, along with "many" who come in Christ's Name, have worked hard to convince me that the Holy One of Israel, the "Rock" that gave Israel Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink, that Paul called "Christ", instructed men like Abraham and the men of Sodom, the men of Nineveh, Caleb, Joshua etc., to trust in Him, to deny themselves and follow Him, to place their faith in HIM. And then these "many" promote that those who did place their Trust in Him, HE placed on their Necks, impossible Laws and commanded to obey them. In your sermon to me, you accuse God of placing "613" Laws on the backs of Caleb, Joshua and all the Israelites who trusted Him and followed HIM out of Egypt. Then you implied in the philosophy that you promoted to me, that God Lied to all of them, by telling them could obey His Laws. Then God slaughtered thousands of them, and made them walk in the wilderness until they died, "Because" they didn't keep God's 613 LAWS you and many who come in Christ's Name, claim HE placed on their necks.
And to justify this popular religious philosophy that existed in the world, even before God placed me in it, you referenced a list you found on the internet, of all places, created by some random Jews, and used it to promote this wicked and evil judgment against Christ, the Word of God who became Flesh.
Now I addressed this list at the time, by actually reading the list to see how they came to that number that has been accepted by so "many", who call Jesus Lord, Lord. I showed you the deceptive tactic they used. Like the Law, "don't uncover the nakedness of your Kin". 1 Law. And how they use God's definition of Kin, to turn 1 law into 20 laws.
It would be like if you had 10 sisters, and God instructed you, "don't uncover the nakedness of your sisters", and then went to confirm, "Don't uncover the nakedness of Sally, "Don't uncover the nakedness of Mary, Lisa, Barbara, Emma, Karen, and so forth. Then claiming God placed on your neck 11 Laws. It's a deception, it isn't true, and it was designed by the spirit of the prince of this world to promote an evil, false and wicked Judgment against God.
But you didn't even consider this truth, and seem to be still working to justify the philosophy that God placed on the necks of men who trusted HIM, Laws impossible to obey. There is nothing more I can do here. A man must be fully convinced in his own mind about the Honest, Just, Perfect Character of the One True God, and HIS Word who became flesh.
As to your question about "how many Laws". It seems since you are on a public forum, preaching about God, you should already know these things. If you are a mother or a wife, doesn't God have instruction for mothers and wives. If you are a child, HE has instruction for them as well, Yes? If you are father, a priest, a slave, a master, hasn't God, for those who are Seeking His Righteousness, given them Way of the Lord. Who am I to tell you what to do.
I would advocate that you listen to the Prophets and Apostles that God Sent to show you in the way that you should go, and to "Beware" of random websites.
Rom. 12: 1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye "present your bodies" a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2 And be not conformed to this world (This would include it's religoins, and random websites I am quite sure) but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that "ye may prove" what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 40,394
- 7,357
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
In other words you don’t know or won’t say how many laws are in the Mosaic law. Here are resources, not random websites, that lists all 613 commandments with the Bible verses for each. You can go to the Bible, the prophets and apostles writings, to study them.
A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)
A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)
A list of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) that are binding on Jews.
www.jewfaq.org
Here is another from James Madison University.
Here is another.
“The Talmud tells us (Tractate Makkot 23b)that there are 613 commandments (mitzvot) in the Torah; 248 Positive Commandments (do's) and 365 Negative Commandments (do not's). “
There are many more. You make the claim that there are not 613 mitzvot but you can’t say how many there actually are. Your opinion is not evidence.
Upvote
0
I am not trying to make it I did make it. I am not a protestant, so I do not limit myself to protestant ideas nor to protestant theology. What I do is accept Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, and the Magisterium as a single source of the revealed word of God, that is to say, it is the teaching of Christ. Protestants are free to accept or reject whatever they like. They are not the main focus of my post which was written to a brother who is from one of the Orthodox churches. I think he understands what I was doing - not merely trying to do.
Upvote
0
- Jun 12, 2020
- 15,968
- 6,083
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Thanks for clarifying, that's what I thought. I disagree that the catholic church is above the Bible Isa 8:20 but appreciate you making the point that those who come to the conclusion that eating unclean animals does not come from Scripture.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Oh dear; for goodness' sake! The Catholic Church is not "above scripture". To say so is a very old piece of protestant propaganda against the Catholic Church. Just a moment, while I consult dogmatic sources, I shall give you a fuller explanation from those sources.
The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture and the Church are inseparably united because both arise from the one divine source of Revelation, which is Christ Himself. Scripture is truly the Word of God written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20–21), yet it was entrusted to the Church Christ founded as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). The apostles preached the Gospel before anything was written (cf. 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15), and that same apostolic faith—first handed on orally—was later committed to writing as the canonical Scriptures recognised and preserved by the Church.
Dogmatically, the Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition together form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, entrusted to the Church and authentically interpreted by the Magisterium, which “is not above the Word of God, but serves it” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum 9–10). The canon of Scripture itself is known with certainty only through the Church’s authority, solemnly affirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393), Carthage (397), Florence (1442), and dogmatically defined at Trent (1546). Thus, the Church does not stand over Scripture, nor Scripture over the Church; rather, both stand together under God’s revelation, each needing the other according to God’s design.
For this reason, the Catholic Church reads Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church, guided by the same Spirit who inspired it (John 16:13). Christ entrusted His teaching authority to the apostles and their successors (Matt 28:19–20; Luke 10:16), ensuring that the Word of God is preserved faithfully, interpreted authentically, and proclaimed without error. In Catholic dogma, therefore, Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium are three interwoven realities, none of which stands alone, but together safeguard the fullness of divine revelation for all ages (Dei Verbum 10).
- Jun 12, 2020
- 15,968
- 6,083
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
You just said that there is nothing in the Scripture that says eating unclean meats is permissible, and only supported by the Catechism, which is not Scripture. Which supports similar Catholic teachings not found in God's Holy Word.
There is only one conclusion to draw from this and its one the Bible Itself warns about Isa8:20 Pro30:5-6 Rev 22:18
Upvote
0
Oh dear, more ill-informed protestant propaganda derived from some source that is not dogma is not official and is not especially reliable.
Your post relies on a non‑magisterial newspaper snippet (“Catholic Record, 1923”) and then treats it as if it were a dogmatic definition of the Catholic Church. That is a fundamental category error. The Catholic Church’s dogmatic teaching is found in Ecumenical Councils, papal definitions, and the Catechism, not in newspapers, pamphlets, or polemical publications. The Church explicitly rejects the claim that it is “above the Bible”; rather, Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium “are so linked that one cannot stand without the others” (Dei Verbum 10). Scripture itself affirms the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), not as an authority competing with the Word of God but as its divinely appointed guardian.
Your post also misrepresents Catholic teaching on the Sabbath. The Church does not claim the power to “change” God’s law; instead, it teaches that the ceremonial precepts of the Old Covenant, including the seventh‑day Sabbath, were fulfilled in Christ (Col 2:16–17) and that the apostles themselves gathered on “the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2) because of the Resurrection (Matt 28:1). This apostolic practice is the basis for Sunday observance, and the Church’s dogmatic authority—given by Christ (Matt 16:18–19; Luke 10:16)—confirms what the apostles handed down. The Council of Trent explicitly teaches that the Church preserves and interprets divine revelation; it does not invent new commandments.
Your post further claims that Catholics teach eating “unclean meats” is justified only by the Catechism. This is false. The Catholic position is grounded directly in Catholic canonical Scripture, where Christ Himself declares all foods clean (Mark 7:18–19) and where Peter is commanded, “What God has made clean, you must not call unclean” (Acts 10:15). St Paul likewise teaches that “nothing is unclean in itself” (Rom 14:14) and that food does not separate us from God (1 Cor 8:8). The Church’s dogmatic teaching simply affirms what Scripture already reveals (Catechism §1179; §1972).
Finally, your post cites Isaiah 8:20, Proverbs 30:5–6, and Revelation 22:18 as if the Catholic Church adds to Scripture. This is incorrect. The Church defined the canon of Scripture (Hippo 393; Carthage 397; Florence 1442; Trent 1546) but did not add to it; she recognised the books already received in apostolic tradition. The real danger is treating non‑authoritative sources like the Catholic Record as if they were dogma. Authentic Catholic doctrine is found in Scripture, apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium—not in polemical quotations circulated in Protestant apologetics.
Upvote
0
- Jun 12, 2020
- 15,968
- 6,083
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
There must be a lot of ill informed priest and bishops and Catholic encyclopedias and Revs writing Catechism of Catholic Doctrine then who all say the same thing, the change of God's 4th commandment did not come from Scripture but the sense of the Catholic church own sense of power, which they say is above the Bible. None of the Scripture you referenced state the 4th commandment has been abrogated. I would be happy to go through each one them if you would like perhaps in another thread. .
Note these are Catholic sources, not Protestant
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I’m quite prepared to wager that you don’t actually possess all those books, nor have you personally tracked them down through careful research. It is far more likely that you are repeating material lifted from some Protestant polemicist’s compilation. For that reason, I’m not going to waste my time—or anyone else’s—responding to each item one by one. And if this is the sort of post you intend to offer for discussion, then we may as well stop here. I have no interest in engaging with arguments built on ill‑informed anti‑Catholic propaganda.
If you genuinely want to understand what the Catholic Church teaches, then consult dogmatic sources—the Councils, the Catechism, the Fathers, and the Magisterium—and form your comments from your own theological reasoning in comparison with what the Church actually teaches, not from what some polemic writer claims it teaches. To be blunt, that kind of recycled rhetoric is simply tiresome. It does not merit a reply.
Upvote
0
- Jun 12, 2020
- 15,968
- 6,083
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Oh but I have on the majority of them! I looked them up one day and have a file on my computer. I’m heading out right now would be happy to share them if you would like a little later.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Good for you; seems like wasted effort to me but you are free to spend your own time as you please. I, however, have no interest in engaging with newspaper quotes and what not.
@SabbathBlessings
I thought you might enjoy a selection of comments regarding Seventh Day Adventism from mostly non-Adventist sources.
Here is a concise, respectful, and well‑sourced set of critical but non‑hostile observations about certain teachings or historical patterns within Seventh‑day Adventism, drawn from reputable academic and journalistic sources. These critiques address ideas, not the Christian identity of Adventists, which all cited authors affirm.
Several scholars note tensions between Adventist ideals and institutional practice. Ronald Lawson observes that while Adventism strongly promotes religious liberty, its global operations sometimes show “anomalies in practice,” including cooperation with authoritarian governments despite its historic separationist stance. Another Lawson study highlights internal tensions between sectarian distinctives and assimilation, noting that immigrant‑driven conservatism sometimes slows the denomination’s long‑term movement toward mainstream Protestant patterns. JSTOR. When Immigrants Take over: The Impact of Immigrant Growth on American Seventh-Day Adventism's Trajectory from Sect to Denomination These critiques are sociological, not theological attacks, and they treat Adventism as a legitimate Christian denomination wrestling with modernity.
Historians also critique aspects of Adventist historiography. Jonathan M. Butler argues that some denominationally produced histories show “predictable parochialism” and uneven scholarly quality, limiting their reception outside Adventist circles. This is not a dismissal of Adventist faith but a call for more rigorous academic engagement. Likewise, a global survey published in Review of Religious Research found that nearly half of Adventists surveyed believed strict adherence to the Adventist “Health Message” ensured salvation—an interpretation the study notes is “at odds with formal doctrine,” highlighting internal pastoral and theological challenges.
Taken together, these sources show that mainstream scholars treat Adventism as a Christian movement with distinctive doctrines that invite legitimate academic critique—just as with any other Christian tradition. None of these critiques deny Adventism’s Christian identity; they simply examine historical, sociological, and doctrinal tensions using publicly available, reputable sources.
JSTOR
Church and State at Home and Abroad: The Evolution of Seventh-Day Adventist Relations with Governments
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1466103
JSTOR
When Immigrants Take over: The Impact of Immigrant Growth on American Seventh-Day Adventism's Trajectory from Sect to Denomination
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1387586
JSTOR
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26784887
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26784887
JSTOR
Health Beliefs, Behavior, Spiritual Growth, and Salvation in a Global Population of Seventh-day Adventists
https://www.jstor.org/stable/45401225
I thought you might enjoy a selection of comments regarding Seventh Day Adventism from mostly non-Adventist sources.
Here is a concise, respectful, and well‑sourced set of critical but non‑hostile observations about certain teachings or historical patterns within Seventh‑day Adventism, drawn from reputable academic and journalistic sources. These critiques address ideas, not the Christian identity of Adventists, which all cited authors affirm.
Several scholars note tensions between Adventist ideals and institutional practice. Ronald Lawson observes that while Adventism strongly promotes religious liberty, its global operations sometimes show “anomalies in practice,” including cooperation with authoritarian governments despite its historic separationist stance. Another Lawson study highlights internal tensions between sectarian distinctives and assimilation, noting that immigrant‑driven conservatism sometimes slows the denomination’s long‑term movement toward mainstream Protestant patterns. JSTOR. When Immigrants Take over: The Impact of Immigrant Growth on American Seventh-Day Adventism's Trajectory from Sect to Denomination These critiques are sociological, not theological attacks, and they treat Adventism as a legitimate Christian denomination wrestling with modernity.
Historians also critique aspects of Adventist historiography. Jonathan M. Butler argues that some denominationally produced histories show “predictable parochialism” and uneven scholarly quality, limiting their reception outside Adventist circles. This is not a dismissal of Adventist faith but a call for more rigorous academic engagement. Likewise, a global survey published in Review of Religious Research found that nearly half of Adventists surveyed believed strict adherence to the Adventist “Health Message” ensured salvation—an interpretation the study notes is “at odds with formal doctrine,” highlighting internal pastoral and theological challenges.
Taken together, these sources show that mainstream scholars treat Adventism as a Christian movement with distinctive doctrines that invite legitimate academic critique—just as with any other Christian tradition. None of these critiques deny Adventism’s Christian identity; they simply examine historical, sociological, and doctrinal tensions using publicly available, reputable sources.
JSTOR
Church and State at Home and Abroad: The Evolution of Seventh-Day Adventist Relations with Governments
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1466103
JSTOR
When Immigrants Take over: The Impact of Immigrant Growth on American Seventh-Day Adventism's Trajectory from Sect to Denomination
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1387586
JSTOR
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26784887
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26784887
JSTOR
Health Beliefs, Behavior, Spiritual Growth, and Salvation in a Global Population of Seventh-day Adventists
https://www.jstor.org/stable/45401225
JSRG
Well-Known Member
- Apr 14, 2019
- 2,633
- 1,676
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
You go on to throw out a whole lot of quotes, so I'm not going to examine them one by one, but there are some general comments to make. First, given how much I see some Catholics nowadays complain about there being "a lot of ill informed priest and bishops" I'm not sure why that possibility is excluded even from a Catholic perspective.
Regardless, the first issue one sees is that some of the things you cited don't seem even relevant to the claim you're making; in fact, despite your claim "these are Catholic sources" I see some that are not even from Catholics (e.g. Cave and Stanley were Anglicans, and there might have been more non-Catholics I missed). Furthermore, of the ones that do have relevance to your claim, almost all of the sources you cite are from over a century ago, and are primarily of apologetic intent. In other words, they're not teaching on an actual dogma or even teaching of the Catholic Church, but just some argument that particular Catholics seemed to think was good (it seems a downright bad argument to me, which may be why it's been mostly dropped, hence why one has to mostly dredge up stuff from over a century ago to find it). The fact that a particular Catholic--even if in some cases they were a priest or even a bishop--thought something was a decent argument doesn't mean it's some kind of formal position of the Catholic Church itself. I believe some of the writers cited, in fact, in other works better qualified their positions. For example, you cite Gibbons several times; see the response from Gibbons to Canright's question noted in this blog post (Protestant, for the record) for somewhat of a qualification on his position, and actually that linked post seems to explain well why all of these quotes don't matter all that much anyway.
Furthermore, one can certainly find Catholics taking the opposite position and asserting it can be found in scripture, such as:
What the Early Church Believed: Sabbath or Sunday?
Some religious organizations claim the Church "changed" the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, but Scripture and Tradition reveal something else.
Notably, this one got approved by a bishop (granted, imprimatur approval only serves to say it violates no Catholic dogma, not that the person approving it agreed with it--but that also applies to any sources you highlighted as having an imprimatur, and a bunch of yours didn't even have that). No doubt you disagree with its assertion, but if you're going to say "Catholics claim this" then it should be noted that some Catholics reject it, and reject it with ecclesiastical approval at that. So much like there is presumably disagreement among Seventh Day Adventists--or any denomination, really--as to whether particular arguments for Adventism are good or not, we can clearly see there is disagreement among Catholics as to whether particular arguments--such as this one--are good or not.
So primarily all this deluge of quotes serves to prove is that some Catholics in the past made what seems to me to be a bad argument, and clearly one that other Catholics disagree with.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 26, 2019
- 17,557
- 9,451
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Generic Orthodox Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Revelation 18:2 and 21:22 have no relevance to the Roman Catholic Church, contrary to the teachings of some Restorationist denominations - they say literally nothing about the Roman Catholic Church. Rather they are a commentary on sinful wordliness.
As for Isaiah 66:16, the New Testament makes it explicitly clear, contra what @Xeno.of.athens is asserting, that the consumption of pork is permissible (since the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 expressly said that all Gentile Christians were prohibited from eating is blood and the food of things strangled).
Also your argument that eating pork is damnatory is particularly offensive in light of the persecution of Coptic Orthodox Christians in Muqattam, an impoverished suburb of Cairo. They are forced to subside herding swine that feed on the garbage dumped from Cairo, and when swine flu affected nearby countries, the Egyptian government slaughtered their livestock despite no evidence of infection, leading to some starving (since Muslims also erroneously abhor pork consumption).
Upvote
0
- Nov 26, 2019
- 17,557
- 9,451
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Generic Orthodox Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
I’ve never seen an Orthodox canon declare pork consumption to be permissible - rather the Orthodox and the Early Church Fathers appear to have taken the view that the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and related Scripture made it permissible. Conversely, what Scripture makes it clear is disallowed, such as sodomy, is penanced in our canons, for example the Canons of St. John the Faster or the Canons of the Ecumenical Synods.
The issue with your argument is that aside from inviting Adventist criticism without reason and giving them a talking point, there’s also the fact that the early church was eating pork long before the Council of Florence (which the Eastern Orthodox Church and Armenian Apostolic Church attended but in both cases officially rejected - in our case due to the efforts of St. Mark of Ephesus. And it’s good we did not accede to Florence, since Vatican II has provided a much more generous path towards reconciliation (I object to the Concilium of Annibale Bugnini, not Vatican II itself, the two are often conflated, but chiefly I object to efforts to suppress the Traditional Latin Mass for it more closely resembles the Orthodox Divine Liturgy especially before the ill-advised revisions to the Paschal Triduum by Pius XII).
Upvote
0
- Nov 26, 2019
- 17,557
- 9,451
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Generic Orthodox Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
On this we agree - indeed pork, being white meat, is regarded as healthier than red meat if properly prepared. And shellfish can be very healthy to eat, along with venison (which I particularly enjoy - it’s been too long since I’ve had any, I haven’t had any venison for over a decade I just realized, to my dismay).
Upvote
0
Carl Emerson
Well-Known Member
- Dec 18, 2017
- 16,240
- 10,714
- 80
- Country
- New Zealand
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
You are avoiding what Scripture says about the issue. Holding tight onto theology and dancing around the clear message of the text.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
