• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Arizona Court of Appeals rules in favor of SS couple, based on SC Masterpiece ruling

Discussion in 'Current News & Events' started by ubicaritas, Jun 15, 2018.

  1. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    Now they are offered to convenience.
     
  2. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    +958
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    that's how it reads
     
  3. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    +958
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    that wasn't in your post
    It has nothing to do with what i responded to.
    You obviously know this
    so you just lied
     
  4. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    Note that Exodus 22:29 does not say or require that there should be any killing of the sons. And other passages explain what it means (e.g. Numbers 18:15-16, Numbers 3:50-51).

    *******

    Note that it didn't have to be to be true.

    It does, because it shows that even if sins are genetic, they're still sins. And they still can't be supported by Biblical Christians.
     
  5. RestoreTheJoy

    RestoreTheJoy Well-Known Member Supporter

    +609
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    No, it does not. It does not say to sons are to be killed.
     
  6. pat34lee

    pat34lee Messianic

    +2,574
    Messianic
    Single
    .
     
  7. kiwimac

    kiwimac Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian Supporter

    +1,295
    New Zealand
    Utrecht
    Married
    AU-Greens
    Under Jewish belief a "little one" was a born child not a foetus which was not fully human until after first breath.
     
  8. RestoreTheJoy

    RestoreTheJoy Well-Known Member Supporter

    +609
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    A child is consistently called a child in scripture, not a fetus.

    Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...Jeremiah 1:5

    "Rebekah his wife conceived [and] the children [Jacob and Esau] struggled together within her." Genesis 25:22

    "Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son [Samson]. Now drink no wine or similar drink… for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb…" –Judges 13:7

    The death of or damage to a child in utero results in punishment for the perpetrator:

    "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she give birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is further injury, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." –Exodus 21:22-25.
     
  9. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    +958
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    That first breath was considered to be the moment that a soul entersed the body
     
  10. kiwimac

    kiwimac Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian Supporter

    +1,295
    New Zealand
    Utrecht
    Married
    AU-Greens
    You are taking scripture out of context. As for the Exodus 21 scripture, the harm referred to is to the woman not to the foetus for whom a fine is levied.
     
  11. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    So it's okay to kill a child right before its first breath?

    No, for the Bible shows that even unborn children have consciousness (Luke 1:41), and can be filled with God's Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15).

    How dare anyone murder such a one as these, and for mere convenience!
     
  12. RestoreTheJoy

    RestoreTheJoy Well-Known Member Supporter

    +609
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    You are incorrect. The harm is any that follows to either, the child or the woman. A child born prematurely is protected the same as the mother. Some pro-choice advocates attempt to argue that a child "going forth" must mean miscarriage so that the harm can be only to the woman, the child can be a nonentity, but the original language translation does not bear this out.
     
  13. Queller

    Queller I'm where?

    +665
    United States
    Christian
    Divorced
    US-Others
    It's easy to claim that but just because you say it doesn't make it so.
     
  14. Queller

    Queller I'm where?

    +665
    United States
    Christian
    Divorced
    US-Others
    "Why" is an interesting question because despite what Paul claims, Jesus says that nothing in the law will be changed until heaven and earth pass away and all of the law is fulfilled. Matthew 5:18
     
  15. RestoreTheJoy

    RestoreTheJoy Well-Known Member Supporter

    +609
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Likewise. The insistence that a behavior is exactly like an immutable characteristic of skin color doesn't make it so.
     
  16. Queller

    Queller I'm where?

    +665
    United States
    Christian
    Divorced
    US-Others
    We aren't talking about behavior, we're talking about orientation.
     
  17. Queller

    Queller I'm where?

    +665
    United States
    Christian
    Divorced
    US-Others
    Not according to Jesus in Matthew 5:18

    Women as second-class citizens subordinate to males is not justice.
    *******
    ... Repeated copy and paste snipped.

    *******
    Not according to Jesus in Matthew 5:18

    But it doesn't say or require that it is a mountain not here on earth You're adding that to explain away the problem. The Bible has proscriptions against that sort of thing. Proverbs 30:5-6

    And yet the mountain is not? Why add to the plain reading of the text?

    Umm, because it happened.?

    What reference source are you using for that claim? According to Strong's it means "εἰς, a preposition governing the accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among."

    I don't see anything there about it meaning "by".

    More adding to the Bible. You really have a problem with the plain reading of the text.

    Did you ever think that by having to add so much to the Bible might mean something is off about your interpretation of it?

    You do know that Mark and Luke were not at Jericho with Jesus right? That they got their accounts from other witnesses?

    Minors are not allowed to consent to marriage.

    Ridiculous. Orientation is not the same as paraphillia.

    But not in any way that can be empirically proven, such as healing an amputee. Why do you think that is?

    Maybe they were but sometimes it seems that God is peculiarly selective in his healing.

    Do you feel the same about practitioners of Santeria?

    Because they have a captive audience and that violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.

    And when a Wiccan teacher leads their class in a prayer to Diana or a Muslim wants to hand out copies of the Quran, will you support that?

    Did you bother to read the article, written by an evangelical Christian that I posted? Here it is again in case you missed it:

    Why I'm Against Pre-game Prayers

    So that meant it was OK when we did it to the Native Americans?

    "Most" of the population was NOT against it. Why do you think that half the states at the time seceded from the Union in order to preserve slavery?

    We aren't talking about church, we're talking about rights as an American citizen.

    When you have a captive audience and pray to them, they are forced to listen.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2018
  18. Queller

    Queller I'm where?

    +665
    United States
    Christian
    Divorced
    US-Others
    Basing laws under the Constitution on whether something is a sin is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

    So a Hindu student can post verses from the Bhagavad Gita on a Christian student's locker and you'd be OK with it?

    Sorry, no. You don't get to change the scenario. You said

    Answer the question; how do they know?

    No, it is not. It is upholding the Establishment Clause.

    Which is exactly what we have now. Students can decide what prayers they want to pray on their on time.

    Nope, making a cake for one couple but refusing to make an identical cake for another couple based on sexual orientation is discrimination against a person.
    *******
    No, but it does justify the legal upholding of the establishment clause at school events.

    wrong.

    And yet they do it all the time.

    That is exactly what is happening. If I have to be at a location for something and someone starts reciting a Islamic Call to Prayer, I'm forced to listen to it.

    It isn't voluntary when you have no choice but to be there and listen to it.

    As I said above, this is exactly what we have now. Students can decide what prayers they want to pray on their on time. Not at school sponsored events and especially not at events where attendance is mandatory.
    *******
    Because those "Biblical" Christians decided to open a business to the public but refuse to treat all American citizens the same.
    *******
    From Websters

    Pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object; specifically : a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child.

    Pre-pubertal and prepubescent mean the same thing.

    No, that is not what makes someone a pedophile. See above definition from Webster's

    By Webster's, as shown above.

    According to Jesus there is no such thing. Matthew 5:18
    *******
    1. There are multiple documented cases of homosexuality in animals.
    2. There is not one single disease that homosexuals get that heterosexuals do not also get.

    Maybe, but that does not mean that we can outlaw something just because the Bible says so. That is a huge violation of the First Amendment.

    For the umpteenth time, just because something is proscribed in the Bible does not mean that the US can make it illegal just because the Bible proscribes against it. There must be a secular reason for the law. Ever heard of the Lemon Test?

    Not in the United States under our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is amazing how many Fundamentalists/Evangelicals wave the Constitution around when it suits their purposes but seem to always forget about the prohibition against the government establishing a religion. In spite of the fact that it is right there in the same First Amendment that they beat people over the head with. And in fact comes before the free exercise clause.

    You're arguing against a straw man here. I'm arguing that the Bible condoned of chattel slavery. I made no mention of race.

    Really? Exodus 21:20-21

    Also, Exodus 21:4-6

    Now that's funny. And that's coming from a liberal.
     
  19. kiwimac

    kiwimac Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian Supporter

    +1,295
    New Zealand
    Utrecht
    Married
    AU-Greens
    Unfortunately you are wrong. Allow me
    Source
     
  20. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    Matthew 5:18 did not mean that heaven and earth had to pass away before the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments could be abolished, but that Jesus Christ had to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah's/the Christ's first coming (Luke 24:44-46; e.g. Acts 3:22-26, Isaiah 53) before He could abolish the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments (for both Jews and Gentiles, of all times) on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19).

    Also, do you reject the apostle Paul, and so reject the books of the Bible written by him? If so, that is a serious mistake. For the basis for Paul's theology is direct revelation to him from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). That is why his theology is in accord with what the Old Testament foretold (Acts 26:22-23), with what the New Testament Gospels describe (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and with what the other writings in the New Testament say (2 Peter 3:15-16).

    The basis for Paul's authority, his being an apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1), is his being an eyewitness of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1), and receiving his ministry directly from Jesus (Acts 26:16-18, Acts 9:10-22). When the other apostles saw how greatly Jesus worked through Paul, they accepted him as a fellow apostle (Galatians 2:9, Acts 14:14). Peter even expressly wrote to Christians confirming that all of Paul's epistles are from God, are scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). There is no reason to reject Paul's apostolic authority (1 Corinthians 14:36-37). His faithful work on behalf of Jesus proves that he is not a false apostle (Matthew 7:16-18). And Paul fulfilled many of the signs spoken of by Jesus regarding true Christians (Mark 16:17-18, Acts 19:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:18, Acts 28:3-5, Acts 28:8).

    Also, because of the wonderful example of Saul the persecutor becoming Paul the apostle (1 Timothy 1:12-17; Acts 7:58 to Acts 13:9), Christians should never give up on any non-Christians, no matter how hostile they are to Christians and the Christian faith. Instead, Christians should keep praying for them that God would miraculously save their souls (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8, Colossians 1:21-23). And because of the example of Saul becoming Paul, those who have persecuted Christians, and reviled the Christian faith in the past, but now feel God's gifts of repentance and faith (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8) moving within them, should not think that what they have done against Christians and the Christian faith (whether in word or in deed) in the past disqualifies them now from being able to repent, and to ask God's forgiveness, and to receive His salvation through their faith in Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:21-22).

    *******

    Orientation is defined by behavior. Also, homosexual behavior is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), and Biblical Christians cannot support sinful activity (Ephesians 5:11).

    *******

    No one has said that women are second-class citizens. For:

    Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    But just as this cannot mean that there are no Christians who are Jews or Gentiles in any sense, for Christians remain either genetic Jews (Acts 22:3) or genetic Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), so Galatians 3:28 does not mean that there are no Christians who are males or females, for we are still males or females with regard to our genitals, and with regard to other matters (1 Timothy 2:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:34-37; 1 Corinthians 11:4-16; 1 Peter 3:7a).

    So Galatians 3:28 can only mean that there is no distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians, or between male and female Christians, with regard to them being "one in Christ" (Galatians 3:28b), in the sense of them being one body in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:4-6), without distinction with regard to their salvation (Romans 10:12; 1 Corinthians 12:13; 1 Peter 3:7b).

    It does, for only from a mountain in heaven could all of the kingdoms of the earth be viewed.

    No, for there is no problem. Also, Proverbs 30:5 includes the purity of God's teaching in Romans 1:26-27, for example.

    Right.

    The plain reading of Matthew 4:8 does not say or require that the mountain is on the earth.

    Why would they have to mention everything that happened?

    Compare what John 20:30 says.

    My Strong's entry for #G1519 reads:

    a primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases: -- (abundant-)ly, against, among, as, at, (back-)ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for (intent, purpose), fore, + forth, in (among, at, unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-)on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore(-unto), throughout, till, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-)until(-to), ...ward, (where-)fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literally or figuratively).

    --

    [And "by" is the meaning of G1519 in Acts 27:2.]

    No. Instead, it would be adding to the Bible to claim that Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35-43 say that Jesus did not touch the blind eyes.

    So what? There is nothing inaccurate about their accounts.

    Yes, they are, in many states.

    Pedophilia is by definition a sexual orientation toward minors.

    How was His healing of the blind, for example, not empirically proven?

    That's right.

    For example, see 2 Corinthians 12:7-10.

    The First Amendment does.

    No, it doesn't. For the unbelievers in the audience can play with their smartphones during the prayer.

    Any prayer in the classroom should be up to the students. And they should be able to hand out Bibles to their fellows as part of Mark 16:15 and the "free exercise" part of the First Amendment, which would also protect any students handing out Korans.

    In the latter case, if the students take the Korans home to Christian parents, it would serve as an opportunity for the parents to explain to the students that because Islam falsely claims that the anti-gospel Koran came through the angel Gabriel, it is one fulfillment of Galatians 1:8-9 (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14).

    Islam is an anti-gospel religion because, even though it affirms that Jesus is the Christ (Koran 4:157, Koran 5:17,75), it denies that Jesus is the human/divine Son of God (Koran 9:30, Koran 4:171, Koran 5:72). And it denies that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins (Koran 4:157) and rose physically from the dead on the third day. In order to be saved from hell, people have to believe the Gospel that Jesus is both the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (John 3:16,36; 1 John 2:23), and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins and rose physically from the dead on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:39,46-47, Matthew 20:19, Matthew 26:28).

    The reason why it is necessary to believe these things to be saved from hell is because it was only as the human/divine Son of God that Jesus Christ's suffering during His Passion could satisfy God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:46).

    Jesus Christ's suffering during His Passion was sufficient to forgive the sins of everyone (1 John 2:2), because Jesus is not only a human, but also God (John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 20:28). His soul is infinite, and so the suffering of His soul (Isaiah 53:11, KJV) was infinite in amount, even though it was not infinite in duration. And so His suffering could satisfy God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11, KJV; 1 Peter 3:18), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:46). Because humans who are not God have finite souls, in order for them to suffer an infinite amount for their sins they must suffer over an infinite duration of time (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:10-11, Mark 9:46).

    Every human has sinned (Romans 3:23), except Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:15b; 2 Corinthians 5:21). But because Jesus suffered for sins (1 Peter 3:18, Isaiah 53:11, KJV) an infinite amount, when elect people repent from their sins and believe in Jesus' human/divine sacrifice, they can have their past sins forgiven (Romans 3:25-26, Matthew 26:28), while God the Father's justice remains fully satisfied by Jesus' suffering for their sins (Isaiah 53:11, KJV; 1 Peter 3:18).

    One way to help Muslims understand how Jesus Christ can be God, from everlasting, is to question them about their understanding of the Muslim belief regarding the Koran. For Islam says that there was no time when the Koran did not exist in a spiritual form in heaven, that it has always coexisted with Allah as his word. So Christians can show Muslims that the Bible says that before Jesus' incarnation, there was no time when He did not exist in a spiritual form in heaven. He has always coexisted with God the Father as God the Word (John 1:1,14).

    This is not to suggest that the Muslim claim regarding the Koran is true, or that the book itself is true. Indeed, again, because Islam falsely claims that the anti-gospel Koran came through the angel Gabriel, it is one fulfillment of Galatians 1:8-9 (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14).
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2018
Loading...