BLM says Jesus doesn't love us.

[Quartermaine]

Fortunately we live under grace and not under the law...so your comment is meaningless.

and since we live under grace and not the law saying homosexuality is an abomination is also meaningless

 

[Quartermaine]

So you are judging him by what you think (or want to believe) is in his heart instead of accepting his words as he states them. Judge not......

he says "I'm a racist" I accept that he is

 

[Quartermaine]

Sure they are; you can watch them in action most evenings in some city somewhere.

you mean like this?

and hey....not one of the people at this rally are lying about what is on the BLM web sight

 

[Quartermaine]

Yes, we can't do enough righteous acts to earn Gods favor. But to say unsaved people cannot do righteous acts is not true. It's not about love of God, it's about action and doing the right thing. But no one is without sin, that is why Jesus had to die in our place, we then become declared righteous in Christ, by God.

James was writing to Christians, so we all still struggle with sin, Just like Paul in Romans 7. We all (or most) have a conscience that tells us wrong from right.

What BLM does is not right. We don't riot, loot, protest continually, and seek to defund the police-who keeps the criminal element in check, because one black man dies at the hands of cops. We don't say we are going to burn down society if we don't get what we want.

you are referring to Walter "Hawk" Newsome “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It’s a matter of interpretation,” in an interview with Fox News where he was billed as a lawyer and a leader of Black Lives Matter.

In reality he is a high school drop out that is not associated with BLM. he leaders of BLM have denounced Newsome for years for co-opting their name to engage in personal fundraising. Newsome has raised millions for himself in this way

“As BLM has told Mr. Newsome in the past, and as is still true today, Mr. Newsome’s group is not a chapter of BLM and has not entered into any agreement with BLM agreeing to adhere to BLM’s core principles.”

 

[civilwarbuff]

and since we live under grace and not the law saying homosexuality is an abomination is also meaningless

In the New Testament (NT), there are at least three passages that refer to homosexual activity: Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10. A fourth passage, Jude 1:7, is often interpreted as referring to homosexuality. Jesus discusses marriage only in a heterosexual context when he cites the Book of Genesis during a discussion of marriage (Matthew 19:4–6 and Mark 10:6–9).

Appears that once more you are on the wrong side.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

he says "I'm a racist" I accept that he is

Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sov’reign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?

So, when you sing this verse are you believing you are actually and physically a worm?

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't believe anyone here is willing to look through "multiple sermons" to disprove your claims since you have not bothered to link them your self.

That’s true, and what is more, even if he is preaching racist sermons (which doesn’t entirely add up given the congregation was apparently telling the BLM people “God loves you,” leading to the horrible reply “God don’t love you”, hence this thread), it still would not matter; if @Sparagmos would care to reread my post he would note my position is that all houses of worship and consecrated sites should be regarded as inviolable.

Its simply wrong to go into a church, synagogue, mosque, gurdwara, temple, or other place of worship, and disrupt the services. In fact, I would argue that such acts ought to be prosecuted not just as felony trespass, but as hate crimes.

 

[The Liturgist]

In the New Testament (NT), there are at least three passages that refer to homosexual activity: Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10. A fourth passage, Jude 1:7, is often interpreted as referring to homosexuality. Jesus discusses marriage only in a heterosexual context when he cites the Book of Genesis during a discussion of marriage (Matthew 19:4–6 and Mark 10:6–9).

Appears that once more you are on the wrong side.....

This is entirely correct. What is more, if we read the writings of the Fathers of the early church, and read the ancient canon law compiled in the Didache, the Didascalia, the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the 18th century Eastern Orthodox compendium of ancient canons from the 3rd through 17th centuries known as the Pedalion, much of which used to apply to the Roman Catholic church as well, it becomes clear that the Christian church always abhorred homosexuality, and imposed severe penances on church members who engaged in it.

In fact, St. Gregory of Nyssa, who has become much adored by liberal Christians because they erroneously believe he was a universalist (see the ridiculous Episcopalian church named for him in San Francisco, which blends elements of non-Christian pagan traditions into its worship services, for example, during funerals, the urn containing the ashes of the deceased is temporarily placed in what the rubrics of their liturgy refer to as a “Shinto Shrine”, wrote a series of disciplinary canons, one of which expressly addresses homosexual conduct and severely chastises those who engage in it.

 

[childeye 2]

What BLM does is not right. We don't riot, loot, protest continually, and seek to defund the police-who keeps the criminal element in check, because one black man dies at the hands of cops. We don't say we are going to burn down society if we don't get what we want.

For the sake of context I want to point out that there are semantics that form in subjective points of view. In any true left/right dichotomy, what one side deems as not right, is deemed as right by those on the other side. That's just a fact of psycho-linguistics. Therefore if we reason upon the absolutes subjectively, we are never engaging in the objective point of view which must be considerate of both subjective views to determine what is right and wrong for a community as a whole.

In the objective view, there are degrees of wrong on two sides which ultimately are working both ends against the middle which is where that which is right and fair is to be discerned. Therefore any language that is not working both ends towards the middle is going to be divisive and hypocritical at the foundation of the reasoning it expresses.

Police brutality is wrong, and it should be acknowledged as such. Therefore it's right to protest against it when it becomes a matter of neglect or even advocated by those who we elect to hold power. That too should be acknowledged. It's also right in the objective view to point out that protesting crosses a line when it turns to looting or burning or vandalism as the means of persuasion. However at the same time, it's wrong to assert that the protesters are for looting and burning so as to not give any credence to the true and righteous purpose of ending police brutality.

I don't agree with any articulation that paints the situation with the broad brush of absolutism which happens on both sides, since I see that it ultimately will be self-fulfilling in an escalation of wrongs happening by people who are displaying a myopic view of what is right. I look at the many posts filled with divisive language on this thread and it's all wrong. Trying to point out the hypocrisy and is often misconstrued as a personal attack due to the semantical pitfalls.

 

[childeye 2]

In the New Testament (NT), there are at least three passages that refer to homosexual activity: Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10. A fourth passage, Jude 1:7, is often interpreted as referring to homosexuality. Jesus discusses marriage only in a heterosexual context when he cites the Book of Genesis during a discussion of marriage (Matthew 19:4–6 and Mark 10:6–9).

Appears that once more you are on the wrong side.....

Respectfully, I think you missed his point entirely. This is a strawman argument.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Its simply wrong to go into a church, synagogue, mosque, gurdwara, temple, or other place of worship, and disrupt the services. In fact, I would argue that such acts ought to be prosecuted not just as felony trespass, but as hate crimes.

Agreed but since Christianity is viewed as a legitimate target by the left that is not likely to happen.....

 

[childeye 2]

Agreed but since Christianity is viewed as a legitimate target by the left that is not likely to happen.....

Wrong. The phrase 'the left' is not applicable. Post #229.

 

[The Liturgist]

For the sake of context I want to point out that there are semantics that form in subjective points of view. In any true left/right dichotomy, what one side deems as not right, is deemed as right by those on the other side. That's just a fact of psycho-linguistics. Therefore if we reason upon the absolutes subjectively, we are never engaging in the objective point of view which must be considerate of both subjective views to determine what is right and wrong for a community as a whole.

In the objective view, there are degrees of wrong on two sides which ultimately are working both ends against the middle which is where that which is right and fair is to be discerned. Therefore any language that is not working both ends towards the middle is going to be divisive and hypocritical at the foundation of the reasoning it expresses.

Police brutality is wrong, and it should be acknowledged as such. Therefore it's right to protest against it when it becomes a matter of neglect or even advocated by those who we elect to hold power. That too should be acknowledged. It's also right in the objective view to point out that protesting crosses a line when it turns to looting or burning or vandalism as the means of persuasion. However at the same time, it's wrong to assert that the protesters are for looting and burning so as to not give any credence to the true and righteous purpose of ending police brutality.

I don't agree with any articulation that paints the situation with the broad brush of absolutism which happens on both sides, since I see that it ultimately will be self-fulfilling in an escalation of wrongs happening by people who are displaying a myopic view of what is right.

The thing is, police brutality is a type of crime, and we can no more “end” police brutality than we can “end” murders or domestic violence. All we can do is implement new systems like body cams to hold officers to account. And much of what people allege is police brutality actually isn’t; when someone resists arrest with violence, there is going to be a fight, in some cases a nasty fight, and in some rare and tragic cases, lethal force will have to be used to protect the public from the offender.

None of this justifies a group of disorderly persons of different ethnic backgrounds illegally entering a religious building during a worship service for purposes of disrupting that worship, an act which is clearly trespassing, and in my opinion, a hate crime on a par with arson attacks against churches, mosques and synagogues, and religiously motivated assaults on individuals (for example, the horrible, brutal attacks on Sikhs in the aftermath of certain incidents of Islamic terror by ignorant racist thugs who incorrectly assumed the Sikhs were Muslim because of their beards and turbans).

 

[civilwarbuff]

Respectfully, I think you missed his point entirely. This is a strawman argument.

You might want to re-read #225......

 

[The Liturgist]

Wrong.

Such an answer would be more compelling if it were not for the fact that liberal governors across the US forcibly suppressed Christian worship services, and even now impose a vast array of inane and unconstitutional restrictions on them, while allowing BLM protests to go unchecked. The worst example of this is in California. Where protestors are allowed to scream at the top of their lungs, but Jewish synagogues and Christian churches are not allowed to sing hymns or chant. This has the effect, by the way, of completely suppressing traditional Orthodox Christian worship, because while the Roman Catholics have the Low Mass, and the Anglicans and Episcopalians have “Said Services” without music, all Orthodox services are sung and chanted throughout, usually a capella, with the sole exception being the homily. The same is also largely true of traditional Jewish synagogue services, of Sikh worship, of Zoroastrian liturgies such as the Yasna, of many Hindu rites, and in the Islamic tradition, Quran recital and the cries of the Muezzin and the Imam as they lead the congregation in prayer. So, basically, entire religions have been prohibited by the liberal governor, including the second largest Christian denomination, and Christian worship as a whole has been severely compromised.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Wrong. The phrase 'the left' is not applicable. Post #229.

You don't believe the left views Christianity as a legitimate target for their progressive agenda?

 

[childeye 2]

You might want to re-read #225......

I did re-read it. Post #211 is where you state abominations are meaningless because we're under grace and not under the law, referring to abominations found in the Old Testament, which were pointed out by Quartermaine. Quartermaine then applied the same reasoning to homosexuality. If he's on the wrong side how are you not? Post #225 doesn't address the issue, if you were intending to show that God is not for homosexuality, since Quartermaine never implied God is.

 

[childeye 2]

Such an answer would be more compelling if it were not for the fact that liberal governors across the US forcibly suppressed Christian worship services, and even now impose a vast array of inane and unconstitutional restrictions on them, while allowing BLM protests to go unchecked. The worst example of this is in California. Where protestors are allowed to scream at the top of their lungs, but Jewish synagogues and Christian churches are not allowed to sing hymns or chant. This has the effect, by the way, of completely suppressing traditional Orthodox Christian worship, because while the Roman Catholics have the Low Mass, and the Anglicans and Episcopalians have “Said Services” without music, all Orthodox services are sung and chanted, usually a capella.

Respectfully, where is it that Mosques and other places of religious worship apart from Christians were exempted?

 

[The Liturgist]

Respectfully, where is it that Mosques and other places of religious worship apart from Christians were exempted?

I never said that they were. Reread my post.

 

[childeye 2]

You don't believe the left views Christianity as a legitimate target for their progressive agenda?

I would rather you understand that your articulation is unsound. The term left pertains to a left/right dichotomy which exists only to denote an abstract center. You can't use the term left as a label meaning against Christ or against God.