ReformedChapin
Chapin = Guatemalan
The "fungelicals" agenda is to preach the unbiased gospel unlike liberals. Nice name calling.
Upvote
0
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.
The "fungelicals" agenda is to preach the unbiased gospel unlike liberals. Nice name calling.When you point your finger at other people, there are another three fingers pointing back at you. I love the way that fundagelicals like to accuse others of having an agenda while at the same denying that they have one, don't you?
So what's your agenda then?
Oh I know: to justify your own prejudices.
I see him using the word, I don't see him defining it in the way you want him to. I see him using it in the same way he uses it elsewhere: to talk of people doing things that are against their own inclinations (but not some platonic eternal nature: Paul wasn't a Platonist.) Sorry try again.
The "fungelicals" agenda is to preach the unbiased gospel unlike liberals. Nice name calling.
or is to preach what they interpret to be the unbiased Gospel, which apears biased to everyone else?
umm.... did you just call everyone who disagrees with your opinions about the Bible as "not led by the Spirit"? :oIt's only "biased" to those not lead by the Spirit of God, who live in obedience to the word of God instead of trying to justify their sin by twisting Scripture.
To be honest, I find it quite strange when someone reads a story about a gang rape of angels, and the worst thing he can find there is homosexuality...To those lead by the Spirit of God, living in obedience, what the word says is CLEAR, CLEAR, CLEAR. Sodomy is sin - sodomy is why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and Sodomites are, according to God's Apostle Paul, "unrighteous" who will "NOT inherit the Kingdom of God."
umm.... did you just call everyone who disagrees with your opinions about the Bible as "not led by the Spirit"? :o
To be honest, I find it quite strange when someone reads a story about a gang rape of angels, and the worst thing he can find there is homosexuality...
When you point your finger at other people, there are another three fingers pointing back at you. I love the way that fundagelicals like to accuse others of having an agenda while at the same denying that they have one, don't you?
So what's your agenda then?
Oh I know: to justify your own prejudices.
I see him using the word, I don't see him defining it in the way you want him to. I see him using it in the same way he uses it elsewhere: to talk of people doing things that are against their own inclinations (but not some platonic eternal nature: Paul wasn't a Platonist.) Sorry try again.
Everything I have said has been backed up by scripture, I have never said "this is what I believe" without refering to scripture,
You`ll have noted the nessesary verses from Romans 1 at the top of my post, paul says that men gave up "natural" relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.
Who is everyone else? LOLor is to preach what they interpret to be the unbiased Gospel, which apears biased to everyone else?
26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Everything I have said has been backed up by scripture, I have never said "this is what I believe" without refering to scripture, what i have done is said "this is what I believe this scripture to mean, I accept that it is entirely possible for me to be decieved on this issue, having been bought up in a church that has taught that homosexuality is wrong I probably have come at this a little biased. However neither have I ever heard a convincing biblical argument for the defence of homosexuality, when one is produced i will conceed that I am wrong, however up until that argument comes forth I will continue to teach what to me is the obvious meanings of the scriptures in the bible concerning homosexuality.
You`ll have noted the nessesary verses from Romans 1 at the top of my post, paul says that men gave up "natural" relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another. While in verse 26 it says women gave up natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, what nature dictates is that a natural relationship is between a man and a women. This is what the words say. There is no mention of, if a homosexual was to give up his natural inclination and go against nature to be consumed with passion for someone of the opposite sex, in the passage, the contrary is stated.
Mark.
This is the most ironic post I have seen in my life.Like every other fundagelical, you seem to think you own the right to interpret the Bible as you see fit and tell everybody else what you think it means. Like every good liberal, I think your interpretation does not accord with the context of ancient Roman culture.
But of course, as every good fundagelical knows, they have more of the Holy Spirit than anyone else (they can buy at the store at discount.)
And it still says that people who were normally straight decide to play around.It says nothing of anyone who is born gay or is in a lifelong commited relationship.
YES!
Faith without reason isn't faith... its just regurgitation of Bible verses.
Christians are supposed to Love God and be like him. How can you love anything if you don't at least TRY to understand it??!!
According to liberals there is gay animals although it violates evolution itself.Does not nature itself teach that it is wrong.
According to liberals there is gay animals although it violate evolution itself.
Leviticus says the same thing about eating shrimp, wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics, shaving, handling pigskin, wearing glasses to church and engaging in modern agriculture. Sadly Leviticus has no trouble with either slavery or murdering your disobedient child .so I am not sure using this particular book to prop up prejudice is a good idea.
I'm only reffering to it since a lot of liberals claim the science argument.So THAT'S why my female cats have been actin' awful 'chummy' lately - and i thought it was just the catnip!!
As to evolution, or EVILution, i disagree with that too. God created...ex nihilo...not waiting billions of years for things to appear.
"In the beginning, God created...everything by His Word, speaking them into existence. Man/woman are His special creation, man created by the hand of God from the dust of the earth, woman from the rib of man!
Fundie (and proud of it) i am!
Ray
First, he calls it abomination in the OT, and lots of people around here keep banging on about how the New Covenant of Christ washes away much of the OT injunctions.
Mat 5:17 said:"Do not suppose that I came to tear down [fig., abolish] the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to tear down _but_ to fulfill.
I'm only reffering to it since a lot of liberals claim the science argument.
As to the hermenutcal interpretation of genesis, I'm not sure whether that's a literal statement. All I can say for sure is that genesis states that God made the world, as to his methodology, that's up to him.
Biologically we have many similarities to animals, to me that doesn't necesserly mean that we evolved but came from the same creator. I haven't taken a side on the evolution contraversy, actually I'm not interested since I don't think it's an essential Christian doctrine.Seems to me though, if God had chosen evolution as his method, human would be little more than animals (seems plausible, what with liberal morality lessons from gay squirrels). I'm pretty sure man was made a special creation though, right? Man couldn't then have been made the same as animals.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?