One Jesus, two testimonies?

[MercyBurst]

Probably not, it wasn't about being gay, it was about showing others who was boss.
tulc(sipping another great cup of coffee)

OK then, a gay pride parade in the plains of sodom sounds like a great idea. Let me join you in the applause.

I don't want to watch it though. Me don't want to be a pillar of salt.

 

[Floatingaxe]

God did not write false translations, yet you love to conveniently confuse the two.
The translators are NOT the Apostles, nor can they speak for God...they are mortal men who within themselves have contradicted themselves with numerous inconsistencies.

Ignorance? please let's not even go there....

Bible translation to translation there are flaws and inconsistencies even in your so-called "modern translations"...your debate holds up like the way Thelma and Louise drove the car off the cliff.

Evil men? the only evil prevailing is in those who judge others calling their acts evil (and them ignorant on a shallow dumbfounded basis), while using the Bible to justify bigotry. "Let's use the same book that endorsed slavery and polygamy to condemn same sex, monogamous, loving relationships", as if that makes even an ounce of sense.

You are so very hung up on your rhetoric, that you ignore your reality. You, who sodomize are living outside of the grace and will of God. You have no hope without the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, whom you reject with your very life.

You know nothing of the parts of very Word of God that you even ACCEPT! So what do you bring to the table? Nada, zip, nothing. Your denial of truth is very deep, and secured by Satan himself. You need intercessory prayer to release you from your chains.

Unless you come to Jesus Christ on your knees and ask for forgiveness for your sins, you will not receive salvation, or the God-given deeper understanding of His message to your heart that will change you from the inside out.

Until then, you are on the outside, an orphan, looking in on the happy, healthy family of God.

 

[Zaac]

Probably not, it wasn't about being gay, it was about showing others who was boss.
tulc(sipping another great cup of coffee)

Tulc is there something you want to tell us about why you always sipping all this coffee?

 

[Floatingaxe]

Probably not, it wasn't about being gay, it was about showing others who was boss.
tulc(sipping another great cup of coffee)

Either way, all those wicked homosexuals became toast...for there were none righteous among any of them. Their wickedness extended past to their homosexuality into inhospitability. It played in integral part in their vile sin against themselves in general and the messengers of God in particular.

 

[Ohioprof]

It strikes me that the people who argue that the Bible condemns homosexuality and thus God disapproves of it are starting from a different set of assumptions than other folks are. Some of the Christians here argue that the Bible is the word of God, is infallible, and clearly spells out that God disapproves of "homosexuality." Other Christians here argue that the Bible is the word of God, but that it is not necessarily infallible and that its meaning is not always clear; they argue that the Bible requires interpretation, and not everyone interprets the Bible the same way. Still other Christians, notably yours truly, argue that the Bible is not the word of God at all, that it was written by fallible human beings who sought to understand and know God, but that it is the words of men, not God.

Another set of assumptions on which Christians disagree is the extent to which people should rely on the Bible as their source of knowledge and source of faith or belief. Some Christians here argue that the Bible alone should serve as our source of belief or faith, that the Bible is sufficient, and other sources of knowledge are lesser and flawed and unnecessary for understanding what God wants and God's truth. Other Christians here argue that the Bible is an important source of belief or faith, but that it is not the only source of Christian belief or faith and that other sources of understanding, such as scientific evidence and the perspectives of other faiths and our personal experiences, should also be considered in seeking to understand God and God's will. Still other Christians, among them yours truly, see the Bible as not a source of knowledge about God at all, but rather as a historical source of information about earlier cultures and about early Christianity and the life of Jesus.

Because we have people starting with such different assumptions, the folks in these forums often end up talking past each other. Because we do not share the same assumptions about faith, about knowledge, and about what constitutes "evidence," we don't influence each other's perspectives much.

To me, the arguments of Biblical literalists mostly sound absurd. I am sure that my arguments sound like that to them. It's because we start from different assumptions.

 

[Ohioprof]

You are so very hung up on your rhetoric, that you ignore your reality. You, who sodomize are living outside of the grace and will of God. You have no hope without the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, whom you reject with your very life.

You know nothing of the parts of very Word of God that you even ACCEPT! So what do you bring to the table? Nada, zip, nothing. Your denial of truth is very deep, and secured by Satan himself. You need intercessory prayer to release you from your chains.

Unless you come to Jesus Christ on your knees and ask for forgiveness for your sins, you will not receive salvation, or the God-given deeper understanding of His message to your heart that will change you from the inside out.

Until then, you are on the outside, an orphan, looking in on the happy, healthy family of God.

If being part of the "happy, healthy family of God," means embracing the beliefs that you have laid out in these forums, then I will stay outside, thank you. I find the beliefs you espouse to be repulsive to me. But they are probably fine for you. We hold different assumptions, and our assumptions lead us to very different conclusions about how to live and what to believe.

So let's accept that we are different and let each other be who we are. I don't agree with you about much of anything, but I accept your beliefs as your beliefs.

 

[tulc]

Tulc is there something you want to tell us about why you always sipping all this coffee?

Uhmmm yeah, that I'm, you know, sipping some great coffee.
tulc(who is oddly enough once again sipping some great coffee)

 

[GenemZ]

It strikes me that the people who argue that the Bible condemns homosexuality and thus God disapproves of it are starting from a different set of assumptions than other folks are. Some of the Christians here argue that the Bible is the word of God, is infallible, and clearly spells out that God disapproves of "homosexuality." Other Christians here argue that the Bible is the word of God, but that it is not necessarily infallible and that its meaning is not always clear; they argue that the Bible requires interpretation, and not everyone interprets the Bible the same way. Still other Christians, notably yours truly, argue that the Bible is not the word of God at all, that it was written by fallible human beings who sought to understand and know God, but that it is the words of men, not God.

That's why there are going to be people in Hell. For, God does not coerce someone to believe what they choose not to. If he did? No one would be in Hell, and everyone would believe the same things.

Its called 'volition.' Its the rock God created that is so heavy, that God can not lift it.

Yes, God can create a rock so heavy that he can not lift it. Human volition! If he could? No one would be in Hell.




.

 

[tulc]

Until then, you are on the outside, an orphan, looking in on the happy, healthy family of God.

Yeah outside the camp, you know, where Jesus is.
tulc(where all "those" Christians also hang out with Jesus)

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear tulc,

Yeah outside the camp, you know, where Jesus is.

No the Jesus Christ according bto the biblical acount, we have the Biblical one and another gay affirming one who tries to claim he is Jesus but evidently isnt because it isnt the Biblical one. Jesus is in the happy healthy familiy of God.

 

[MercyBurst]

Probably not, it wasn't about being gay, it was about showing others who was boss.
tulc(sipping another great cup of coffee)

Tell us why the men of sodom called Lot a judge.

 

[Floatingaxe]

It strikes me that the people who argue that the Bible condemns homosexuality and thus God disapproves of it are starting from a different set of assumptions than other folks are. Some of the Christians here argue that the Bible is the word of God, is infallible, and clearly spells out that God disapproves of "homosexuality." Other Christians here argue that the Bible is the word of God, but that it is not necessarily infallible and that its meaning is not always clear; they argue that the Bible requires interpretation, and not everyone interprets the Bible the same way. Still other Christians, notably yours truly, argue that the Bible is not the word of God at all, that it was written by fallible human beings who sought to understand and know God, but that it is the words of men, not God.

No, the Church of Jesus Christ are united in their belief that the Scriptures are holy and inerrant and God is infallible. You see, we know that God is powerful and able to get the message out, untarnished. He is no feeble deity. He is God Almighty!

Another set of assumptions on which Christians disagree is the extent to which people should rely on the Bible as their source of knowledge and source of faith or belief. Some Christians here argue that the Bible alone should serve as our source of belief or faith, that the Bible is sufficient, and other sources of knowledge are lesser and flawed and unnecessary for understanding what God wants and God's truth. Other Christians here argue that the Bible is an important source of belief or faith, but that it is not the only source of Christian belief or faith and that other sources of understanding, such as scientific evidence and the perspectives of other faiths and our personal experiences, should also be considered in seeking to understand God and God's will. Still other Christians, among them yours truly, see the Bible as not a source of knowledge about God at all, but rather as a historical source of information about earlier cultures and about early Christianity and the life of Jesus.

Interesting that you list the "types" of Christians in a descending order, from totally sold out on God to nominal acknowledgement of Him. Excellent!

Because we have people starting with such different assumptions, the folks in these forums often end up talking past each other. Because we do not share the same assumptions about faith, about knowledge, and about what constitutes "evidence," we don't influence each other's perspectives much.

To me, the arguments of Biblical literalists mostly sound absurd. I am sure that my arguments sound like that to them. It's because we start from different assumptions.

Too bad. It is only unbelievers who feel that way. You have just outed yourself.

 

[MercyBurst]

Tulc is there something you want to tell us about why you always sipping all this coffee?

What goes in has gotta come out.

 

[MercyBurst]

It strikes me that the people who argue that the Bible condemns homosexuality and thus God disapproves of it are starting from a different set of assumptions than other folks are. Some of the Christians here argue that the Bible is the word of God, is infallible, and clearly spells out that God disapproves of "homosexuality." Other Christians here argue that the Bible is the word of God, but that it is not necessarily infallible and that its meaning is not always clear; they argue that the Bible requires interpretation, and not everyone interprets the Bible the same way. Still other Christians, notably yours truly, argue that the Bible is not the word of God at all, that it was written by fallible human beings who sought to understand and know God, but that it is the words of men, not God.

Another set of assumptions on which Christians disagree is the extent to which people should rely on the Bible as their source of knowledge and source of faith or belief. Some Christians here argue that the Bible alone should serve as our source of belief or faith, that the Bible is sufficient, and other sources of knowledge are lesser and flawed and unnecessary for understanding what God wants and God's truth. Other Christians here argue that the Bible is an important source of belief or faith, but that it is not the only source of Christian belief or faith and that other sources of understanding, such as scientific evidence and the perspectives of other faiths and our personal experiences, should also be considered in seeking to understand God and God's will. Still other Christians, among them yours truly, see the Bible as not a source of knowledge about God at all, but rather as a historical source of information about earlier cultures and about early Christianity and the life of Jesus.

Because we have people starting with such different assumptions, the folks in these forums often end up talking past each other. Because we do not share the same assumptions about faith, about knowledge, and about what constitutes "evidence," we don't influence each other's perspectives much.

To me, the arguments of Biblical literalists mostly sound absurd. I am sure that my arguments sound like that to them. It's because we start from different assumptions.

Before you run off in a big hurry, how about when Jesus said "you must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven" ?

It sounds like a real good idea for somebody following Christ doesn't it?

 

[Floatingaxe]

If being part of the "happy, healthy family of God," means embracing the beliefs that you have laid out in these forums, then I will stay outside, thank you. I find the beliefs you espouse to be repulsive to me.

They are repulsive to Satan also.

So let's accept that we are different and let each other be who we are. I don't agree with you about much of anything, but I accept your beliefs as your beliefs.

Beliefs are nothing unless they gain you salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, and a home with God. Yours don't. They don't free you from your chains, but they merely rearrange your backpack with the back-breaking load of troubles and burdens so you can continue carrying it a few more miles.

Jesus takes the backpack and throws it away, then takes your hand and walks with you.

That's what MY God does.

 

[Phinehas2]

No, the Church of Jesus Christ are united in their belief that the Scriptures are holy and inerrant and God is infallible. You see, we know that God is powerful and able to get the message out, untarnished. He is no feeble deity. He is God Almighty!

Yes we are united and yes we do.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

To me, the arguments of Biblical literalists mostly sound absurd. I am sure that my arguments sound like that to them. It's because we start from different assumptions.

Too bad. It is only unbelievers who feel that way. You have just outed yourself.

 

[Floatingaxe]

John 3:1-21
There was a man named Nicodemus, a Jewish religious leader who was a Pharisee. After dark one evening, he came to speak with Jesus. “Rabbi,” he said, “we all know that God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are evidence that God is with you.”

Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.”
“What do you mean?” exclaimed Nicodemus. “How can an old man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again?”
Jesus replied, “I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life. So don’t be surprised when I say, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it wants. Just as you can hear the wind but can’t tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can’t explain how people are born of the Spirit.”
“How are these things possible?” Nicodemus asked.
Jesus replied, “You are a respected Jewish teacher, and yet you don’t understand these things? I assure you, we tell you what we know and have seen, and yet you won’t believe our testimony. But if you don’t believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven. And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life.
“For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.
“There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son. And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants.”





Ohioprof: This is the gospel. This is life, offered to you. Will you accept such an excellent gift? Or will you continue to reject the offer of life from the only One who has it to give you?

 

[Zaac]

It strikes me that the people who argue that the Bible condemns homosexuality and thus God disapproves of it are starting from a different set of assumptions than other folks are. Some of the Christians here argue that the Bible is the word of God, is infallible, and clearly spells out that God disapproves of "homosexuality."

Ain't nobody arguing that. It is what It is. yall might be trying to argue that It is not.

Other Christians here argue that the Bible is the word of God, but that it is not necessarily infallible and that its meaning is not always clear; they argue that the Bible requires interpretation, and not everyone interprets the Bible the same way.

Inconsistent with a God who says He is a God of order, not confusion. Does the above way open the door for confusion?

Still other Christians, notably yours truly, argue that the Bible is not the word of God at all, that it was written by fallible human beings who sought to understand and know God, but that it is the words of men, not God.

Girl, stop lying.

Another set of assumptions on which Christians disagree is the extent to which people should rely on the Bible as their source of knowledge and source of faith or belief. Some Christians here argue that the Bible alone should serve as our source of belief or faith, that the Bible is sufficient, and other sources of knowledge are lesser and flawed and unnecessary for understanding what God wants and God's truth. Other Christians here argue that the Bible is an important source of belief or faith, but that it is not the only source of Christian belief or faith and that other sources of understanding, such as scientific evidence and the perspectives of other faiths and our personal experiences, should also be considered in seeking to understand God and God's will. Still other Christians, among them yours truly, see the Bible as not a source of knowledge about God at all, but rather as a historical source of information about earlier cultures and about early Christianity and the life of Jesus.

Still opening the door for confusion. Why not just do as God's word says in Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;

Any understanding that you get that conflicts with His PERFECT Word, is not of Him.

Notice that the confusion and ambiguity only exists amongst those who don't accept His Word as His word and who don't go to Him for their understanding FIRST.

Because we have people starting with such different assumptions, the folks in these forums often end up talking past each other. Because we do not share the same assumptions about faith, about knowledge, and about what constitutes "evidence," we don't influence each other's perspectives much.

If you're false teaching, there is no need for God's people to receive it.

To me, the arguments of Biblical literalists mostly sound absurd. I am sure that my arguments sound like that to them. It's because we start from different assumptions.

You're not a Christian. They should. The Word of God says in 1 Cor.1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God

 

[GenemZ]

Tulc is there something you want to tell us about why you always sipping all this coffee?

It all started way back when others were always yelling at him....

"Will you just take a break!!!
​

(he assumed they meant coffee!)