daniel

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by daniel

I find this kind of reprehensible. Day after day on these forums sozo, lighthouse, and others use name-calling as a regular tool of intimidation. They show no respect for anyone who disagrees with them. And yet as soon as anyone calls them on their behavior and says what they think of it you object.

Pardon me.

Since the topic hadn't been addressed in how many pages? I thought it would be more beneficial to just make a new thread to beat each other up on. Sort of like I'm doing now :)

This thread is full of their typical abuse of others. If you really object to name calling then why don't you daily object to all the name calling that goes on here? Be consistent and stand for the right.

It was about the thread. Not your feelings. But if you don't don't think we all get and give our fair share around here, maybe it's just because you haven't been here very long :)

I know you're not one of the ones to get involved in calling names so the following doesn't apply to you, Nineveh.

Yes, I too call them like I see them when necessary. I'm sure dave miller and 1PM wouldn't agree with you that I'm in the "don't judge" camp. :)

godrulz is a fine example of a true Christian gentleman. He speaks with humility, respect for others, and meekness. He follows the example of his Savior. His opponents though, well, they remind me of those who opposed Christ.

godrulz is patient I'll grant you that. But please don't try to make Christ out into a "judge not-er". He too displayed righteous indignation when appropriate.

They use intimidation, rudeness, cruelty, anger and hatred as their tools.

All of those "tools" are within bounds to use. Agreed some misuse them and they become weapons.

To you on a personal note:

You need to toughen your skin a little. Nothing is more annoying than hearing "you're attacking me" in the middle of a debate. This is an internet forum. The old saying "sticks and stones" comes to mind.

They heap disrepect and hatred upon his head.

I for one do not respect people who misrepresent the Gospel. I don't believe that is a mandate. While I may not be rude, I don't have to respect them or their ideas. Certainly I will try my best to show the errors, but after a while it gets to the point where it's obvious some folks just want to be willfully ignorant. What then? Show them respect as they lie about Christ? No.

They are the Pharisees of this generation. They know some scripture, but they err in that they do not know God or the power of the Gospel. They are filled, just as the Pharisees of Christ's day, with hatred for that which is good, for that which really reflects the character of God. They have a form of religion but deny the power thereof and their actions show it.

Personally, I see nothing "good" in pagnaism, especially when it's hidden behind the Name of Christ.

I for one can no longer stand idly by while decent Christian people are mocked, have their relationship with God impugned, and called vile names. I will call a spade a spade in defense of others.

Suit up and jump in. Just keep it "clean".

Remember, you don't like the tools used as weapons, so don't turn yourself into a hypocrite or get banned. If you are uncertain, here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2053) are the "commandments" of TOL.

That the moderators and owner of this site stand by while this type of behavior goes on a daily basis does not speak well for them as Christians, or even as human beings.

If being offensive got folks banned, there wouldn't be many people here. Christian or pagan.

Want to know who I see as "giving a bad Name" to Christianity? Folks who are pagans with pagan beliefs masquerading as Christians. To me that is offensive. But personally, I'd rather expose them than ban them.

They have the power to put a stop to it and they choose to watch this behavior, and even participate in it. It's reprehensible. It's anti-Christian.

To expose false teaching? Now, remember you want to jump in on the side of folks who you feel are being unjustly labled. So maybe you better take a few and find out who's side everyone is on before you jump into the frey?

I have spent years on the internet and been involved in many forums and I've never seen anything like this.

So have I. And unless you aren't talking about Compuserve, AOL, FireTalk, Yahoo, Virtual Places, Cheetah Chat, Pal Talk, or IRC, we obviously have vastly different experiences on what goes on.

No, TOL isn't going to allow outright profanity. However, if I'm talking to a slut who thinks she is good enough to earn her way to Heaven, I'm not going to hide the fact she is a slut and she isn't good enough. That may sound harsh, it may sound rude, but it should also sound true.

Non-Christian sites won't tolerate this kind of behavior, and yet these so-called Christian's not only tolerate it they enourage it by participating in this behavior themselves. What a way to convince the world the that Christianity is something that is good for it, and has something to better to offer.

Better like....

God is love and He accepts you as you are for what you are, you don't need to repent or even accept Christ?

If that's what you are looking for, TOL isn't for you. You might feel more comfortable at a pagan chat room or a "nicer" theology site.

[godrulz]

Nineveh, is Daniel a fellow believer or an imposter?

[Nineveh]

godrulz,

I dunno. I'm working from the assumption he at least claims Christ, but this is the first I've talked to him. Why do you ask?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Nineveh

godrulz,

I dunno. I'm working from the assumption he at least claims Christ, but this is the first I've talked to him. Why do you ask?

I do not know him. I thought you might have an opinion. I do not want to condone him if he is not. It seems to me that he has a good heart and a grounding in Christianity.

[Nineveh]

I guess we can ask and talk to him. That seems the easiest way to discern, isn't it?

[Granite]

Originally posted by godrulz

Nineveh, is Daniel a fellow believer or an imposter?

Put on your mind reading helmet and find out...

[elohiym]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Yes, I too call them like I see them when necessary. I'm sure dave miller and 1PM wouldn't agree with you that I'm in the "don't judge" camp. :)And what have you judged about my wife, 1PM, Nineveh? Be very specific; no conjecture; give quotes. Give scripture to support you view.


Originally posted by Nineveh

But please don't try to make Christ out into a "judge not-er".Well who should I believe, the Bible or you? Jesus' words prove you false. It is written...

Joh 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

Joh 12:47,48 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Mt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Lu 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

And Paul, what was he thinking...

1Co 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

Oh, but Jesus did tell the self-righteous to judge righteous judgement, not judgement by appearance, if they were going to judge...

Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Is that the verse you think gives you authority to judge anyone, or somehow proves that Jesus was not a "judge-not-er" as you imply?Originally posted by Nineveh

He too displayed righteous indignation when appropriate.Righteous indignation is not synonym for judgment, Nineveh. And note the way he displayed righteous indignation, it was nothing like the selective unrighteous indignation I have witnessed around here.Originally posted by Nineveh

All of those "tools" are within bounds to use.You are wrong. Please provide biblical support for your claim.Originally posted by Nineveh

God is love and He accepts you as you are for what you are, you don't need to repent or even accept Christ?First, God is love.

Second, he does love sinners while they are dead in their transgressions. So God does love and accept them for what they are, especially in light of the fact that they can't and don't modify their behavior to earn salvation.

Third, everybody needs to repent, but repentance is objective, not subjective. I sense your idea of repentance is subjective. We'll see.

Fourth, everyone must accept Christ, but accepting Christ is objective, not subjective. I sense your idea accepting Christ is subjective. We'll see.

So you differ from sozo's definition of moralist how, Nineveh?

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by elohiym

And what have you judged about my wife, 1PM, Nineveh? Be very specific; no conjecture; give quotes. Give scripture to support you view.

I think the thread where she promised Gerald a miracle speaks for itself.

Well who should I believe, the Bible or you? Jesus' words prove you false. It is written...

Joh 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

Joh 12:47,48 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Mt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Lu 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

You mean Jesus didn't judge the pharisees? Or the money changers? Wow, ok, so how do you interpret those passages?


Oh and don't forget the rest of Matthew 7...

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

And Paul, what was he thinking...

1Co 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

Yeah I wonder what he was thinking:

"Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!"

Oh, but Jesus did tell the self-righteous to judge righteous judgement, not judgement by appearance, if they were going to judge...

Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Self righteous? Hardly. Jesus wants believers to use a higher standard, a righteous standard to judge by. Hence the "righteous" part in that quote.

Is that the verse you think gives you authority to judge anyone, or somehow proves that Jesus was not a "judge-not-er" as you imply?

Besides the fact not only He judged but told others to judge, not like a hypocrite, but with righteous judgement? Um, no, can't think of any. lol

Righteous indignation is not synonym for judgment, Nineveh. And note the way he displayed righteous indignation, it was nothing like the selective unrighteous indignation I have witnessed around here.You are wrong. Please provide biblical support for your claim.First, God is love.

You know? So far, in all your judge-not talk, you have been awful judgemental. Think Christ was talking to you when He said don't judge like a hypocrite?

Second, he does love sinners while they are dead in their transgressions. So God does love and accept them for what they are, especially in light of the fact that they can't and don't modify their behavior to earn salvation.

God accepts an unrepentant homosexual?

Third, everybody needs to repent, but repentance is objective, not subjective. I sense your idea of repentance is subjective. We'll see.

You and I must be reading different Bibles. "Repent" is a theme from beginning to end. Some do, some don't. Same as today.

Fourth, everyone must accept Christ, but accepting Christ is objective, not subjective. I sense your idea accepting Christ is subjective. We'll see.

What's with "objective" and "subjective" ?

Either one believes in their heart Jesus is Lord or they don't.

Unless you mean people get to make up their own Christ and "accept" that one, rather than the One who was born in the flesh and rose from the dead.

So you differ from sozo's definition of moralist how, Nineveh?

I dunno, what was his definition?

[elohiym]

Originally posted by Nineveh

I think the thread where she promised Gerald a miracle speaks for itself.As far as 1PM goes, if you cannot be specific, then what were you telling me I should correct her for? Is your case against 1PM so weak you cannot even state your allegations?

Oh well, if you can't make your point, perhaps you should refrain from making vague accusations. 1PM gave you scripture for everything she said about you, and she was right on.Originally posted by Nineveh

You mean Jesus didn't judge the pharisees? Or the money changers? Wow, ok, so how do you interpret those passages?

Oh and don't forget the rest of Matthew 7...

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."I quoted Jesus himself, but you don't want to believe him. Why?

He absolutely did not judge the Pharisees, or the money changers. You obviously don't have a clue what "judge" means. Removing a speck from someone's eye is not judging that person. Originally posted by Nineveh

Yeah I wonder what he was thinking:

"Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!"Oh, so I see, rather than look at all the verses together, you just grab the ones you think make your point. Does that verse state that Jesus will judge anyone? Does that verse say Paul judges himself? Does that verse state we should judge anyone outside the church?

Look, Nin, you said that Jesus was not a "judge-not-er", which is contrary to Jesus' own statements about himself. Can you back up your assertion that Jesus came to judge? If you cannot, then don't act like a false teacher and teach people that Jesus came to judge.Originally posted by Nineveh

Self righteous? Hardly. Jesus wants believers to use a higher standard, a righteous standard to judge by. Hence the "righteous" part in that quote.Read the context of the verse and who Jesus was talking to when he said that. Also, you think that you are capable of righteous judgment? I suppose then you can keep all the commandments to obtain eternal life, like Jesus seemed to be telling people to do.
Originally posted by Nineveh

Besides the fact not only He judged but told others to judge, not like a hypocrite, but with righteous judgement? Um, no, can't think of any. lolJesus did not come to judge. He stated so himself. You have to show me a verse where Jesus states he came to judge. You can't. Examples of what you percieve is judgment by him are irrelevant in light of Jesus' own testimony about himself.Originally posted by Nineveh

You know? So far, in all your judge-not talk, you have been awful judgemental. Think Christ was talking to you when He said don't judge like a hypocrite?Where have I judged? I don't judge anyone. Christ's words do the judging, not me.

If you hate, you are in darkness. Jesus said that, not me.
If you hate, you are a liar. Jesus said that, not me.
If you hate, you are a murderer. Jesus said that, not me.

You seem to think that because I can discern that certain people who claim to be Christians are not because Christ's words state they are not, that somehow it makes me judgmental. That's a riot.Originally posted by Nineveh

God accepts an unrepentant homosexual?What is an unrepentant homosexual?

Have you ceased from every act of the flesh that would have condemned you under the same law as a homosexual? Did the law condemn you, or what? Did you repent by stoping all those acts of the flesh, or by accepting righteousness by faith?Originally posted by Nineveh

You and I must be reading different Bibles. "Repent" is a theme from beginning to end. Some do, some don't. Same as today.Oh, so you can't explain what repentance is. I knew you wouldn't be able to.Originally posted by Nineveh

What's with "objective" and "subjective" ?Explain repentance, and I'll tell you what's with "objective" and "subjective".Originally posted by Nineveh

Either one believes in their heart Jesus is Lord or they don't.That is subjective. What does it mean to believe in Jesus, Nin? Do you even know? I'm starting to wonder.Originally posted by Nineveh

Unless you mean people get to make up their own Christ and "accept" that one, rather than the One who was born in the flesh and rose from the dead.There is only one way to the Father. You know that; but I seriously doubt you know the way based on your own words.Originally posted by Nineveh

I dunno, what was his definition? Well, if you dunno, then I guess his definition was not all that memorable. Good.

What is the definition of self-righteous?

Oh, and I noticed you conviently avoided answering this one:

Daniel said, "They use intimidation, rudeness, cruelty, anger and hatred as their tools."

To which you replied, "All of those "tools" are within bounds to use."

That is a totally false statement, and in my opinion only someone in darkness could make such a statement. So feel free to prove to us that you are not in darkness, Nin. Show me Jesus tells us that intimidation, rudeness, cruelty, anger and hatred are within bounds to use.

You statement contradicts the Bible in so many ways, it is remarkable. Take just cruelty. It is written...

Pr 11:17 The merciful man doeth good to his own soul: but he that is cruel troubleth his own flesh.

Pr 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Ps 27:12 Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty.

Ps 74:20 Have respect unto the covenant: for the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty.

How can cruelty be a "tool" of the righteous, Nineveh?

[daniel]

Nineveh,

You misunderstand me greatly. I never mentioned myself or anything sozo has ever said to me.

I really don't care about what guys like sozo say to me personally. But after reading the abuse he continually heaped upon anyone who disagreed with him I had to say something. The level of rudeness, cruelty and crassness is far beyond what is allowed on any other sites I've ever been on. No site I've ever been a part of has ever allowed any person to continually use name-calling such as goes on here. I also have to say that most of the sites I've been involved with are not Christian sites either.

As to making Christ a judge-not that's a straw man if I've ever seen one. Christ didn't run around being rude and crass to everyone who disagreed with him. He was polite, self-effacing, and humble. He accepted all men as friends. That's why sinners were drawn to Him. No one draws sinners to themselves by personally denouncing them, and sinners loved being around Christ. They invited Him to their parties and feasts. Remember? That was one of the things the Pharisees denounced Him for doing?

quote:
Luke 15: 1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.

2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.




It's ludicrous to say that the publicans and sinner came to Christ to hear Him call them the names that are bandied about on this forum, yet that's exactly what is put forth many times. I have read that of justification for swearing, rudeness, and crassness towards anyone who's theology isn't popular here and for those who aren't Christians.

How far from the reality of Christ's life and example this is. In the world Christ lived in to eat with and share water with someone really meant something personal. It meant that there was a bond between those who did these things. That's why the woman at the well was so surprised when Christ asked her for a drink of water. She was used to being treated the way people this forum treat non-Christians and those who disagree with their theology. Christ treated her with respect. He asked her for a favor. That put Him in her debt. He owed her one for that in their society. He got her attention through that and then got down to His mission: saving the lost. He told her all that she had ever done wrong, but He did it only after He had gained her trust by asking a favor. He didn't do it as condemnation either. He used it as a way to open her eyes as to Who she was talking to.

The parallels between the Pharisee's behavior and many on this site are remarkable. And the people here use the same types of justifications the Pharisees used for their behavior. I'm different. I'm one of God's sons and you're not. Therefore you're worthless and to be treated like dirt.

[elohiym]

Well said, Daniel!

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by elohiym

As far as 1PM goes, if you cannot be specific, then what were you telling me I should correct her for? Is your case against 1PM so weak you cannot even state your allegations?

Oh well, if you can't make your point, perhaps you should refrain from making vague accusations. 1PM gave you scripture for everything she said about you, and she was right on.I quoted Jesus himself, but you don't want to believe him. Why?

Here is the link (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=662071#post662071).

If you don't want to read it and get the whole story, that's your choice. But I'm not going to debate 1PM with you on this thread.

He absolutely did not judge the Pharisees, or the money changers.

"You brood of vipers"
"You belong to your father, the devil"

That sounds pretty judgemental to me. If I said those things to you, you would tell me I'm judging.

You obviously don't have a clue what "judge" means. Removing a speck from someone's eye is not judging that person.

In context, what does it mean then? Did we go from judging to proper lens care in that paragraph?

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Oh, so I see, rather than look at all the verses together, you just grab the ones you think make your point.

Careful pointing fingers there, it looks like it's you that likes to pick and choose so far.

Does that verse state that Jesus will judge anyone? Does that verse say Paul judges himself? Does that verse state we should judge anyone outside the church?

When Christ comes back, is he bringing a:

A. Flower
B. Latest Bestseller from Barns & Noble
C. Sword

After you answer, maybe we can decide if Christ judges or not.


Look, Nin, you said that Jesus was not a "judge-not-er", which is contrary to Jesus' own statements about himself.

Look, He absolutely judged what the pharisees were doing was wrong. He absolutly judged what the money changers were doing was wrong. If He didn't judge them, He had no business correcting them.

Can you back up your assertion that Jesus came to judge?

When Christ was here He had some things to accomplish. Namely dying for us. At that time, He didn't come to judge us all, but to save us. To take this to mean Christ never judged is simply silly. He did judge while He was here and He is coming back with either a flower, a bestseller or a sword. If it's a sword, it won't be carried in vain.

If you cannot, then don't act like a false teacher and teach people that Jesus came to judge.

I made my position known above. It's you that needs to take Christ out of context to make your point. Both Christ and Paul instructs us to use righteous judgement.

Read the context of the verse and who Jesus was talking to when he said that.

Where am I not?

Also, you think that you are capable of righteous judgment? I suppose then you can keep all the commandments to obtain eternal life, like Jesus seemed to be telling people to do.

I'm not under the Law, so why would I observe the Law for righteousness? Christ's righteousness was imparted to me when I was baptised into the Body. I use His standard, not my own.

Jesus did not come to judge. He stated so himself.

You seem to want to skip what He is saying:

"for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

Now compare that to:

"Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty."

Jesus wasn't saying He is non judgemental, but that the time of judgement wasn't then. But it's coming.

You have to show me a verse where Jesus states he came to judge. You can't.

What I can't do is believe you need to take Christ so far out of context to make your point.

Examples of what you percieve is judgment by him are irrelevant in light of Jesus' own testimony about himself.

Only if we misunderstand what Christ says and redefine half a dozen words can we arrive at your conclusion.

Where have I judged? I don't judge anyone. Christ's words do the judging, not me.

And so far, you have some logs you need to get rid of, so you can see clearly to help me with a percieved speck.

If you hate, you are in darkness. Jesus said that, not me.
If you hate, you are a liar. Jesus said that, not me.
If you hate, you are a murderer. Jesus said that, not me.

But select capable men from all the people-men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain-and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.

Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked.

To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph.

You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates.

God is in darkness, a liar and a murderer? Or is it possible there are things appropriate to hate?

You seem to think that because I can discern that certain people who claim to be Christians are not because Christ's words state they are not, that somehow it makes me judgmental. That's a riot.

It seems to me you take Christ out of context when it comes to judgement, so I question your judgement. If you want to call being judemental something else, fine, but that only makes you a veiled hypocrite.

What is an unrepentant homosexual?

A homosexual who hasn't repented.

Have you ceased from every act of the flesh that would have condemned you under the same law as a homosexual?

You mean like do I lust for witchcraft? I did right after I repented, but through faith, that lust has gone away.

Did the law condemn you, or what?

Yes. It did. Fortunatly, because none of the judgenot "Christians" would.

Did you repent by stoping all those acts of the flesh, or by accepting righteousness by faith?

I still hungered for it for a little while. But I practiced my faith and turned to Christ in those times.

Oh, so you can't explain what repentance is.

I can if you don't know what it is.

I knew you wouldn't be able to.

You really don't know God called people to repentance repeatedly?

Just so you won't go off on a tangent about me not explaining repentance to you, it means to be sorry for and to turn from.

Explain repentance, and I'll tell you what's with "objective" and "subjective".

If you plan on telling me people get to define sin, please skip it. I've heard it before and I choose to believe God's definitions.

What does it mean to believe in Jesus, Nin? Do you even know?

Perhaps at this point I need to ask you which Jesus? The Word Who is part of the One True Triune God or the losely defined pantheon you belive in?

I'm starting to wonder.Their is only one way to the Father. You know that; but I seriously doubt you know the way based on your own words.

You aren't the gate keeper to the Body :)

What is the definition of self-righteous?

Defining your own righteousness.

Oh, and I noticed you conviently avoided answering this one:

Daniel said, "They use intimidation, rudeness, cruelty, anger and hatred as their tools."

To which you replied, "All of those "tools" are within bounds to use."

That is a totally false statement, and in my opinion only someone in darkness could make such a statement. So feel free to prove to us that you are not in darkness, Nin. Show me Jesus tells us that intimidation, rudeness, cruelty, anger and hatred are within bounds to use.

Hate is a tool. God uses it. Mockery is a tool. Anger is a tool.

Hate has already been talked about above. God used mockery a few times. Once he sent a dream of bread to an army and it scared them so badly they ran away. (pretty funny if you ask me) And yes, God even gets angry. He got angry with Isreal more than once.

I wouldn't define "intimidation", "cruelty" or "rudeness" as tools, although rudeness sometimes comes with mockery. "Intimidation" and "cruelty" can be broadly defined to include even niceness. (and before you disagree, I have been accused of being "mean" even when I was being as nice as humanly possible)

You statement contradicts the Bible in so many ways, it is remarkable. Take just cruelty. It is written...

Pr 11:17 The merciful man doeth good to his own soul: but he that is cruel troubleth his own flesh.

Pr 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Ps 27:12 Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty.

Ps 74:20 Have respect unto the covenant: for the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty.

How can cruelty be a "tool" of the righteous, Nineveh?

Read above.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by daniel

Nineveh,

You misunderstand me greatly. I never mentioned myself or anything sozo has ever said to me.

Perhaps you misunderstand me greatly. I would appriciate if you would reply to the first post. Do you know how to quote? This post is really hard to follow along with and I would really like to understand where you are coming from.

[Poly]

We need a "truthsmack" smilie.

Can this :wave: be Nineveh and this :geek: be elohiym?

:wave::geek:

(It's the closest thing I can find to a good smack upside the head)

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by daniel

Nineveh,

You misunderstand me greatly. I never mentioned myself or anything sozo has ever said to me.

I really don't care about what guys like sozo say to me personally. But after reading the abuse he continually heaped upon anyone who disagreed with him I had to say something. The level of rudeness, cruelty and crassness is far beyond what is allowed on any other sites I've ever been on. No site I've ever been a part of has ever allowed any person to continually use name-calling such as goes on here. I also have to say that most of the sites I've been involved with are not Christian sites either.

As to making Christ a judge-not that's a straw man if I've ever seen one. Christ didn't run around being rude and crass to everyone who disagreed with him. He was polite, self-effacing, and humble. He accepted all men as friends. That's why sinners were drawn to Him. No one draws sinners to themselves by personally denouncing them, and sinners loved being around Christ. They invited Him to their parties and feasts. Remember? That was one of the things the Pharisees denounced Him for doing?

quote:
Luke 15: 1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.

2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.




It's ludicrous to say that the publicans and sinner came to Christ to hear Him call them the names that are bandied about on this forum, yet that's exactly what is put forth many times. I have read that of justification for swearing, rudeness, and crassness towards anyone who's theology isn't popular here and for those who aren't Christians.

How far from the reality of Christ's life and example this is. In the world Christ lived in to eat with and share water with someone really meant something personal. It meant that there was a bond between those who did these things. That's why the woman at the well was so surprised when Christ asked her for a drink of water. She was used to being treated the way people this forum treat non-Christians and those who disagree with their theology. Christ treated her with respect. He asked her for a favor. That put Him in her debt. He owed her one for that in their society. He got her attention through that and then got down to His mission: saving the lost. He told her all that she had ever done wrong, but He did it only after He had gained her trust by asking a favor. He didn't do it as condemnation either. He used it as a way to open her eyes as to Who she was talking to.

The parallels between the Pharisee's behavior and many on this site are remarkable. And the people here use the same types of justifications the Pharisees used for their behavior. I'm different. I'm one of God's sons and you're not. Therefore you're worthless and to be treated like dirt.

Sorry to intrude on your convo with Nineveh. But this post I would like to address.

First you stated

He was polite, self-effacing, and humble. He accepted all men as friends. That's why sinners were drawn to Him. No one draws sinners to themselves by personally denouncing them, and sinners loved being around Christ. They invited Him to their parties and feasts. Remember? That was one of the things the Pharisees denounced Him for doing?

That's why the woman who touched His garment was ridiculed. Because He was a nice guy. Let's see the term He used, hmmmmmm........ Oh I remember........... A Dog. Jesus called the woman a dog. But her faith in Him made Him wonder why out loud why she had more faith than the Pharisees. That wasnt nice either. And He granted her request. And that is one example. There are more in the gospels where he wasnt exactly kind as you say. The money changers being scorched by Jesus was not a nice moment. How you can say with a straight face Jesus was kind, tolerant, understanding is quite a stretch. I would even venture to say you attempt to be nicer than God. If that floats your boat, go for it. Christ’s apostles asked Him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard [Your] saying?" (Mat. 15:12). What is the accepted Christian response today after an offense is taken? Quick, apologize! Ask for forgiveness! Tell them you are sorry. How did Jesus respond? He said to ignore the complaints of the unbelievers: "Let them alone. They are blind," (Mat. 15:14). Today, many Christians condemn Christ’s attitude as unloving. Thanks Bob :up:

You see the problem you have sir is you like the nice verses and ignore the whole picture. Which is basically most of the Christians today do. You included. :down:

AS Bob Enyart has stated:

When a harsh word is needed God uses a harsh word. This is true in the Old and New Testaments. Herod beheaded John the Baptist for "rebuking" the king for "all the evils which Herod had done" (Luke 3:19) and for condemning the tetrarch for incestuous adultery (Mat. 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-18; Lev. 18:16; 20:21) with "Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife" (Luke 3:19). Jesus warned of "the leaven of Herod" (Mark 8:15). When notified that "Herod wants to kill You," (Luke 13:31), Christ responded without respect, "Go, tell that fox, ‘I cast out demons’…" (Luke 13:32).

So basically, sir, is without the whole bible as a guide, you circumvent the gospel much to your peril. Christianity is ridiculed by people because of folks like you. Jesus said we will be hated. Now why would we be hated? Because we offend. People like Sozo, Enyart, Knight see what folks like you do. And it makes us sick.

Suck on this post for awhile and get back to me when you see the error in your Christian religion.

[drbrumley]

Carry on Nineveh. Keep smackin em.

[drbrumley]

Here's another nuggett of truth

Gentiles (as symbols of the godless) and sodomites are called "dogs" in the Bible (Mat. 7:6; 15:26; Deut. 23:17-18; Ps. 22:16; 59:5-6; Phil. 3:2; Rev. 22:15). And Jesus was harsh (not only to the Pharisees, as some believers wrongly assume but) to all the unrepentant (see His use of "hypocrite"). Jesus instructs Christians to not "cast your pearls before swine" (Mat. 7:6). Yet the silly dilemma now is, "Who could Christ possibly have meant by that, for we are too loving, tolerant, polite and respectful to refer to any human being by that mean-spirited term." Thanks Bob:up:

[Nineveh]

LOL Poly!

By all means drbrumley you are more than welcome to have a say like anyone else. :)

Personally,
I think daniel has misunderstood what I am saying. I am trying to speak in more general terms of TOL, not one specific thread or person.

[drbrumley]

I'm just getting really tired of this nicer than God junk. These folks are being fed milk and thats all they want. Whats it going to take to have folks like Daniel wake up? Someone breaks down his door because they find out he's a christian? It will be too late then.

[Nineveh]

drbrumley,
But...

How long has he been here? A few weeks maybe? Give him a chance to see where we are coming from :)

[elohiym]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Here is the link (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=662071#post662071).

If you don't want to read it and get the whole story, that's your choice. But I'm not going to debate 1PM with you on this thread.You had to bring up 1PM on other threads, including this one. If you cannot back up your claims against her, then don't make any claims against her.

Originally posted by Nineveh

"You brood of vipers"
"You belong to your father, the devil"

That sounds pretty judgemental to me. If I said those things to you, you would tell me I'm judging.He is not judging them; he is describing them. If you said that to me you would not be judging me, but if it were untrue, it would make you a liar.

Originally posted by Nineveh

In context, what does it mean then? Did we go from judging to proper lens care in that paragraph?

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."Do not judge means DO NOT JUDGE. Simple. He tells us NOT to judge. Then he asks us why we judge others. He tells us to remove our own stumbling block, then help the other do the same. He is NOT telling you to judge them. Do you understand?Originally posted by Nineveh

Careful pointing fingers there, it looks like it's you that likes to pick and choose so far.Nineveh, I have offered you several scriptures that state explicitly not to judge, and have Jesus stating explicitly that he did not come to judge.Originally posted by Nineveh

When Christ comes back, is he bringing a:

A. Flower
B. Latest Bestseller from Barns & Noble
C. Sword

After you answer, maybe we can decide if Christ judges or not.The answer is C. And that has nothing to do with Jesus judging anyone. His words judge the wicked. His WORDS judge the wicked. That is the two-edged sword in his mouth, God's word. Get it?Originally posted by Nineveh

Look, He absolutely judged what the pharisees were doing was wrong. He absolutly judged what the money changers were doing was wrong. If He didn't judge them, He had no business correcting them.If Jesus judged them, then the Bible is untrue. Jesus stated plainly that he judges no man, and that he did not come to judge. You have offered nothing but speculation to attempt to refute His own words.Originally posted by Nineveh

When Christ was here He had some things to accomplish. Namely dying for us. At that time, He didn't come to judge us all, but to save us. To take this to mean Christ never judged is simply silly. He did judge while He was here and He is coming back with either a flower, a bestseller or a sword. If it's a sword, it won't be carried in vain.Again, Jesus stated explicitly that he judges no man, and that he did not come to judge. In the end, according to Jesus, His words will judge the wicked.Originally posted by Nineveh

I made my position known above. It's you that needs to take Christ out of context to make your point. Both Christ and Paul instructs us to use righteous judgement.Then how do you explain Jesus and Paul stating explicitly not to judge? Do you deny that that both state such a thing? Originally posted by Nineveh

You seem to want to skip what He is saying:

"for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."You seem to want to skip what He is saying:

"for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Originally posted by Nineveh

Now compare that to:

"Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty."Now all you need to do is figure out what the sharp sword is.Originally posted by Nineveh

Jesus wasn't saying He is non judgemental, but that the time of judgement wasn't then. But it's coming.Then why are you judging if the time isn't now?Originally posted by Nineveh

What I can't do is believe you need to take Christ so far out of context to make your point.How is "I judge no man" and "I came not to judge" taken out of context. What do you think he was saying?

Originally posted by Nineveh

Only if we misunderstand what Christ says and redefine half a dozen words can we arrive at your conclusion.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Nineveh

And so far, you have some logs you need to get rid of, so you can see clearly to help me with a percieved speck.Be specific, if you can. Are you capable of helping me get that log out of my eye? You refuse to help me understand what your objection to 1PM is, so I doubt you will listen to Jesus' words in my case.

Originally posted by Nineveh

But select capable men from all the people-men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain-and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.That's not hatred of a person.Originally posted by Nineveh

Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked.I hate evil, too; but I don't hate ANY people.Originally posted by Nineveh

To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.See above.Originally posted by Nineveh

Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph.Same as above. Boy you sure like to use OT and law when you think it makes your point.Originally posted by Nineveh

You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates.I hate the detestable things, too. Do you hate pork? Sabbath breaking?Originally posted by Nineveh

God is in darkness, a liar and a murderer? Or is it possible there are things appropriate to hate?You missed an option: you are simply wrong.Originally posted by Nineveh

It seems to me you take Christ out of context when it comes to judgement, so I question your judgement. If you want to call being judemental something else, fine, but that only makes you a veiled hypocrite.Then you should be able to show me where I took his words out of context. Jesus stated that He judged no man, not me. Jesus stated that He did not come to judge, not me. The fact that you will not acknowledge that is telling.Originally posted by Nineveh

A homosexual who hasn't repented.Is that a homosexual that has stopped having homosexual sex?Originally posted by Nineveh

You mean like do I lust for witchcraft? I did right after I repented, but through faith, that lust has gone away.Ah, a former witch; but you missed my point.

Do you still lust for anything ever? Originally posted by Nineveh

Yes. It did. Fortunatly, because none of the judgenot "Christians" would.So you admit that you came to Christ without people judging you. Interesting. :think:Originally posted by Nineveh

I still hungered for it for a little while. But I practiced my faith and turned to Christ in those times.Then you are totally cured, right? Nothing you do anymore would have been considered something to hate by God in the OT?
Originally posted by Nineveh

Just so you won't go off on a tangent about me not explaining repentance to you, it means to be sorry for and to turn from.So if you are sorry for being wicked, yet do not turn from your wickedness, you're lost, correct?

Originally posted by Nineveh

If you plan on telling me people get to define sin, please skip it. I've heard it before and I choose to believe God's definitions.Actually, I am telling you that you don't get to define sin. Sabbath breaking is still a sin. Pork eating is still a sin. Not one jot or tittle has changed in the word of God.

Now you are going to redefine sin, watch.Originally posted by Nineveh

Perhaps at this point I need to ask you which Jesus? The Word Who is part of the One True Triune God or the losely defined pantheon you belive in?Jesus the Son of God Almighty, the word made flesh.

What's sad is that because you condemn others for believing in a pantheon because they don't believe in the trinity, you actually condemn yourself. God cannot be limited to a trinity since He is an unlimited compound unity.

This is the second time I explained that to you. You didn't object the last time I explained my beliefs of the unity of God. Now you claim "pantheon" because you obviously want lie about me.Originally posted by Nineveh

You aren't the gate keeper to the Body :)
Ps 84:10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

Ps 24:9 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.
Originally posted by Nineveh

Defining your own righteousness.That's what you are doing.Originally posted by Nineveh

Hate is a tool. God uses it. Mockery is a tool. Anger is a tool.

Hate has already been talked about above. God used mockery a few times. Once he sent a dream of bread to an army and it scared them so badly they ran away. (pretty funny if you ask me) And yes, God even gets angry. He got angry with Isreal more than once.Are you God? Do you get to hate and mock? Show me the verses, please.Originally posted by Nineveh

I wouldn't define "intimidation", "cruelty" or "rudeness" as tools, although rudeness sometimes comes with mockery. "Intimidation" and "cruelty" can be broadly defined to include even niceness. (and before you disagree, I have been accused of being "mean" even when I was being as nice as humanly possible)At least you back off from your outrageous statement. Fine.

[elohiym]

Gentiles (as symbols of the godless) and sodomites are called "dogs" in the Bible (Mat. 7:6; 15:26; Deut. 23:17-18; Ps. 22:16; 59:5-6; Phil. 3:2; Rev. 22:15). And Jesus was harsh (not only to the Pharisees, as some believers wrongly assume but) to all the unrepentant (see His use of "hypocrite"). Jesus instructs Christians to not "cast your pearls before swine" (Mat. 7:6). Yet the silly dilemma now is, "Who could Christ possibly have meant by that, for we are too loving, tolerant, polite and respectful to refer to any human being by that mean-spirited term."Do you Gentiles call yourselfs "dogs" still? :rolleyes:

[drbrumley]

LOL, Im not a gentile. Im a son of God. You?

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by elohiym

You had to bring up 1PM on other threads, including this one. If you cannot back up your claims against her, then don't make any claims against her.

I said if daniel asked her (or dave miller), she prolly would't agree with him about me not being judgemental. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.

He is not judging them; he is describing them. If you said that to me you would not be judging me, but if it were untrue, it would make you a liar.

He had to judge them to get the right lable.

Do not judge means DO NOT JUDGE.

DO NOT JUDGE, HYPOCRITE, means DON'T JUDGE LIKE A HYPOCRITE, quit commiting the sin you are judging for then you can help your brother. JUDGE WTH RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT.

Simple. He tells us NOT to judge.

Like a hypocrite.

Then he asks us why we judge others. He tells us to remove our own stumbling block, then help the other do the same. He is NOT telling you to judge them. Do you understand?Nineveh, I have offered you several scriptures that state explicitly not to judge, and have Jesus stating explicitly that he did not come to judge.The answer is C. And that has nothing to do with Jesus judging anyone. His words judge the wicked. His WORDS judge the wicked. That is the two-edged sword in his mouth, God's word. Get it?If Jesus judged them, then the Bible is untrue. Jesus stated plainly that he judges no man, and that he did not come to judge. You have offered nothing but speculation to attempt to refute His own words.Again, Jesus stated explicitly that he judges no man, and that he did not come to judge. In the end, according to Jesus, His words will judge the wicked.Then how do you explain Jesus and Paul stating explicitly not to judge? Do you deny that that both state such a thing? You seem to want to skip what He is saying:

"for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Now all you need to do is figure out what the sharp sword is.Then why are you judging if the time isn't now?How is "I judge no man" and "I came not to judge" taken out of context. What do you think he was saying?

Perhaps you need to figure out what the "winepress of the fury of the wrath of God" is.

You still don't want to see what He was saying yet do you? Is it because you are like Jonah and simply refuse to help your neighbor see his sin so he has the chance to repent? Or is it because you have a pet sin you don't wanna give up?


Be specific, if you can. Are you capable of helping me get that log out of my eye? You refuse to help me understand what your objection to 1PM is, so I doubt you will listen to Jesus' words in my case.

No, you refuse to read the thread. I'm not Reader's Digest. Make an effort.

You want help with your log? Here it is.

If you feel you can't get the beam out of your eye, then quit judging because it makes you a hypocrite.

That's not hatred of a person.I hate evil, too; but I don't hate ANY people.

God does.

How do you seperate the sin form the one doing it?

Boy you sure like to use OT and law when you think it makes your point.

All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I hate the detestable things, too. Do you hate pork? Sabbath breaking?

Why do you keep trying to put me under the Law?

You missed an option: you are simply wrong.

Or... you could be.

Then you should be able to show me where I took his words out of context.

I already did. You want to make like Jesus didn't judge people, He did. In fact God judges people through the whole Bible. Jesus was telling them His time on earth wasn't the judgement. His time on earth was for salvation. We went over it, you reject it. There is nothing more I can offer you on the issue.

Jesus stated that He judged no man, not me. Jesus stated that He did not come to judge, not me. The fact that you will not acknowledge that is telling.


The fact is, both Jesus and Paul instucts us to judge with righteous judgement, but your theology needs to hang onto that one verse you have taken out of context.

Is that a homosexual that has stopped having homosexual sex?

Stopped because he is sorry? or Stopped because he is dying of AIDS?

Ah, a former witch; but you missed my point.

No, I wasn't a witch, don't assume. I was a garden veriety pagan idolitor that dabbled in the occult including things of witchcraft.

No. I didn't miss your point. I addressed it head on.

Do you still lust for anything ever?

I lust for good things. Lust isn't an evil in and of itself ( IE lusting for your own wife ), it's the misuse of lust that can be sinful ( IE lusting for someone else's wife ).

So you admit that you came to Christ without people judging you. Interesting.

I was convicted of my sin by the Holy Spirit (that's singular btw)

Then you are totally cured, right? Nothing you do anymore would have been considered something to hate by God in the OT?

Obviously not, you've spent all this time judging me for judging.... So obviously you think my judging is a sin.

So if you are sorry for being wicked, yet do not turn from your wickedness, you're lost, correct?

I did turn from tarot cards and the like. But yes, I was sorry for being evil, that's why I repented.

Actually, I am telling you that you don't get to define sin. Sabbath breaking is still a sin. Pork eating is still a sin. Not one jot or tittle has changed in the word of God.

For those under Grace? Surely you jest.

Now you are going to redefine sin, watch.

Nope. I have no need, God's Law is good enough to define sin.

Jesus the Son of God Almighty, the word made flesh.

What's sad is that because you condemn others for believing in a pantheon because they don't believe in the trinity, you actually condemn yourself. God cannot be limited to a trinity since He is an unlimited compound unity.

You sound more like a mormon : shrug :

This is the second time I explained that to you. You didn't object the last time I explained my beliefs of the unity of God. Now you claim "pantheon" because you obviously want lie about me.

How many Holy Spirits you hiding in your version of the Godhead?

Ps 84:10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

Ps 24:9 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.

That's what you are doing.

Not really, I'm just rejecting what you preach is all.

Are you God?

Nope.

Do you get to hate and mock?

When appropriet.

Show me the verses, please.

God mocking the Midianites with a drem of bread can be found in Judges 7.

Oh... really! You don't recall God getting angry at Israel?! Ok, try locating the part in the Bible where Moses delivers the 10 commandments to the people for starters. Then for more instance... just keep reading.

At least you back off from your outrageous statement. Fine.

Now, if only you would.

[elohiym]

Originally posted by Nineveh

You still don't want to see what He was saying yet do you? Is it because you are like Jonah and simply refuse to help your neighbor see his sin so he has the chance to repent? Or is it because you have a pet sin you don't wanna give up?There is no sin in Christ. Get with the program.
Originally posted by Nineveh

Why do you keep trying to put me under the Law?See you want to redefine sin by saying that you are not under the law. Well, then nobody else is either. You can eat pork and break the Sabbath, and homosexuals can go to bathhouses. We'll see where you and those homosexual's end up on judgment day, you know, when the wicked are judged (then).Originally posted by Nineveh

Nope. I have no need, God's Law is good enough to define sin.God's law defines pork eating and Sabbath breaking as sin. Do you still eat pork? Do you still break the Sabbath?

I don't want to put you under the law. I couldn't even do it if I wanted to. What I want to understand is why you speak out of both sides of your mouth like a hypocrite. My questions and comments were designed to get you to think, but I guess that didn't work.

Nineveh,

I believe you have a serious reading comprehension problem, and you really don't understand the gospel. Needless to say, I am through with our discussion. Let the reader decide which one of us speaks the truth.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Poly

We need a "truthsmack" smilie.

Can this :wave: be Nineveh and this :geek: be elohiym?

:wave::geek:

(It's the closest thing I can find to a good smack upside the head)
http://deephousepage.com/smilies/slap.gif

And here's one for a double truthsmack:http://deephousepage.com/smilies/poundon.gif

[Ninjashadow]

Here's a good one:

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by elohiym

There is no sin in Christ. Get with the program.
See you want to redefine sin by saying that you are not under the law. Well, then nobody else is either.

Do you just ignore Paul?

You can eat pork and break the Sabbath, and homosexuals can go to bathhouses. We'll see where you and those homosexual's end up on judgment day, you know, when the wicked are judged (then).God's law defines pork eating and Sabbath breaking as sin. Do you still eat pork? Do you still break the Sabbath?

I guess you do ignore Paul.

I don't want to put you under the law. I couldn't even do it if I wanted to. What I want to understand is why you speak out of both sides of your mouth like a hypocrite. My questions and comments were designed to get you to think, but I guess that didn't work.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

I don't expect you to know who said that, it seems you ignore most of what he says anyway.

I believe you have a serious reading comprehension problem, and you really don't understand the gospel.

Same back 'atcha :)

Needless to say, I am through with our discussion. Let the reader decide which one of us speaks the truth.

Until next time lol ....


YEAH! Maybe now daniel will will feel free to take part in his thread! :)

[cattyfan]

Originally posted by elohiym
God's law defines pork eating and Sabbath breaking as sin.



God's Law is the Ten Commandments...He expects us to follow those. Christ's arrival didn't cancel out God's expectations.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by cattyfan

God's Law is the Ten Commandments...He expects us to follow those. Christ's arrival didn't cancel out God's expectations.

Pork is not in the Decalogue. Are you a Sabbatarian?

[elohiym]

Originally posted by cattyfan

God's Law is the Ten Commandments...He expects us to follow those. Christ's arrival didn't cancel out God's expectations. Do you keep the seventh-day Sabbath?

[elohiym]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Do you just ignore Paul? I guess you do ignore Paul.Paul stated the Sabbath is a shadow of things to come (future tense). Paul kept the Sabbath and taught both Jew and Gentile on the Sabbath. Paul nowhere states not to keep the Sabbath, but he does state to not let anyone judge you for keeping the Sabbath, because it is a shadow of things to come (future tense). Jesus, speaking of the future said to pray you flight isn't on the Sabbath. Furthermore, Isaiah 66 describes the Sabbath being kept on the new earth (future). The early church kept the Sabbath, and evidence of that can be found in the Apostolic Constitution (200-300AD).

Rather than ignoring Paul's words, you have chosen to twist them, just as Peter said people wanted to do to their own destruction.
Originally posted by Nineveh

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.You seem to want to put some people under the law, implying that they put themselves under it by breaking it; yet you claim to not be under the law even though you are breaking it presently. You try and use Paul's words to justify your position. That is double-minded, and it expalins why you appear unstable in your reasoning.

Next you'll tell me that Peter's vision from God meant that pork is no longer unclean for Christians, even though he understood the vision to mean "call no man unclean". How does that fit into your dispensational view of Peter still being under the law?

You have not let God's word define sin for you; but you have twisted Paul's words to define sin for yourself. You are a legalist, Nineveh. And the sad thing is that you cannot see it. :(

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elohiym


You have not let God's word define sin for you; but you have twisted Paul's words to define sin for yourself. You are a legalist, Nineveh. And the sad thing is that you cannot see it. :(

Is this the proverbial pot calling the kettle black?:p

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by elohiym

Needless to say, I am through with our discussion.

lol guess that was a fib, huh?

Paul stated the Sabbath is a shadow of things to come (future tense). Paul kept the Sabbath and taught both Jew and Gentile on the Sabbath. Paul nowhere states not to keep the Sabbath, but he does state to not let anyone judge you for keeping the Sabbath, because it is a shadow of things to come (future tense).

This is what Paul said about Sabbaths:

"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Looks like he just said we (those under Grace) are free from Sabbath Law.

Jesus, speaking of the future said to pray you flight isn't on the Sabbath. Furthermore, Isaiah 66 describes the Sabbath being kept on the new earth (future). The early church kept the Sabbath, and evidence of that can be found in the Apostolic Constitution (200-300AD).

If you insist on keeping the Law for your righteousness, you will fail. But who am I to stand in your way :)

Rather than ignoring Paul's words, you have chosen to twist them, just as Peter said people wanted to do to their own destruction.

Um... nope. Paul taught us we (those under Grace) are saved by Grace, not by the Law.

You seem to want to put some people under the law,

Some are under the Law, Paul said so. Do you know who those people might be?

implying that they put themselves under it by breaking it;

Nope, that's your belief. I never said anything of the sort.

yet you claim to not be under the law even though you are breaking it presently.

I am? How so? By not agreeing with you? Or by calling you a hypocrite for judging me for judging?

You try and use Paul's words to justify your position. That is double-minded, and it expalins why you appear unstable in your reasoning.

Not only do you misunderstand what Christ and Paul have said, you seem to need to twist what I say so you will have a leg to stand on. You aren't being honest, perhaps you should have quit replying when you had some semblance of respect as a debate partner.

Next you'll tell me that Peter's vision from God meant that pork is no longer unclean for Christians, even though he understood the vision to mean "call no man unclean". How does that fit into your dispensational view of Peter still being under the law?

Don't even offer a false hope whatever I would say on the issue might have some bearing on your twisted theology. It's obvious you need to keep the Law. So, as a weaker one ( see Paul for the definition ), have at it.

You have not let God's word define sin for you;

BIG words from the sodomite supporter.

but you have twisted Paul's words to define sin for yourself. You are a legalist, Nineveh. And the sad thing is that you cannot see it. :(

Me a legalist? :darwinsm: If I am, it's only because you keep trying to put me under the Law with you. No thanks. I have Grace:)

[elohiym]

Originally posted by Nineveh

lol guess that was a fib, huh?Nope. I didn't say I wasn't going to respond if you said something silly. You did. You claimed that I don't listen to Paul; but in reality, it is you who are not listening to Paul or Jesus.Originally posted by Nineveh

This is what Paul said about Sabbaths:

"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.Really? Did Paul tell you he was talking about the Sabbath in that verse? I don't see the Sabbath mentioned there at all. I think you assume too much, and don't consider that Paul could have been talking about other days in Roman culture, especially since there is nothing in the law about having to eat vegetables as opposed to meat. So to assume it is the Sabbath law he is talking about is a stretch, to say the least.

Here is what Paul said about the Sabbath:Col. 2:14 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.The Sabbath was/is a shadow of something in the future, like the Passover lamb was a shadow of Jesus. Could one have eliminated the lamb from Passover observance before Jesus was crucified? No. Neither would Paul be implying not to keep the Sabbath, since it was stiil a shadow yet to come (future). Here is the Sabbath pictured in the future...Isaiah 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.Now unless you don't plan to be on the new earth, you will observe the Sabbath then.

Furthermore, where is the controversy over Paul supposedly teaching Christians shouldn't observe the Sabbath? Had he really taught that, it would have created a controversy like when his views on circumcision did. The absence of any controversy also suggests that Paul never told anyone not to observe the Sabbath.

BUT... Paul clearly stated I shoudn't let anyone judge me for observing the Sabbath, NOT for not observing the Sabbath.
Originally posted by Nineveh

Looks like he just said we (those under Grace) are free from Sabbath Law.Those under grace are not under any law, but that has zip to do with observing the Sabbath. Are you under the law when you refrain from adultery, murder, or idol worship? No. And neither is anyone for observing the seventh-day Sabbath under grace.Originally posted by Nineveh

If you insist on keeping the Law for your righteousness, you will fail. But who am I to stand in your way :)Well, if I was keeping the law for righteousness, I would hope that you would stand in my way to help me; but I don't and can't keep any laws for righteousness, so your assertion that I "insist on keeping the Law" for my righteousness is rediculous. Originally posted by Nineveh

Some are under the Law, Paul said so. Do you know who those people might be?You?

Let's see why I think you are a legalist...

I said about you: "...implying that they put themselves under it by breaking it..." To which you answered:

Originally posted by Nineveh

Nope, that's your belief. I never said anything of the sort.Oh, but you certainly implied it, like I said. Let's review a key part of our dialogue...

Nin: "God accepts an unrepentant homosexual?"

(It appears you are asking me if God will accept an unrepentant homosexual. So to clarify what you mean by unrepentant I ask...)

Elo: "What is an unrepentant homosexual?"

Nin: "A homosexual who hasn't repented."

(Sarcastic and evasive, but why? I rephrased it for clarity. So I asked if a repentant homosexual can be defined as follows...)

Elo: "Is that a homosexual that has stopped having homosexual sex?"

Nin: "Stopped because he is sorry? or Stopped because he is dying of AIDS?"

(Sarcastic and evasive again, yet you must have known what I was asking.)

So what am I to understand from that dialogue? Simple, you expect a homosexual to repent by ceasing from his homosexuality. You want him to stop because he is sorry, and that is how you define repentance for the homosexual.

But what law is the homosexual under if the homosexual is a Christian like you. As a Christian, you break the Sabbath and eat pork (I assume), yet you did not stop breaking those laws, and you apparently aren't even sorry for breaking those laws. Still, you get grace and freedom from the law.

However, you still want the homosexual to be sorry and stop his law breaking in order for him to be repentant. Thus, you have either used grace as a license to sin for yourself, or you are putting a homosexual under the law to earn grace. You may be doing both. That is legalism, my dear. Plain and simple. You can cry all you want that it isn't legalism, but it is.Originally posted by Nineveh

I am? How so? By not agreeing with you? Or by calling you a hypocrite for judging me for judging?I just explained why I believe you are a legalist. As for me judging you, and being a hypocrit because I am supposedly judging you for judging is a straw man. Call me what you want. I know I haven't judged you, nor have I judged you for judging. I have been rebuking you for sniping at my wife, misrepresenting Jesus in relationship to his judgement, suggesting that cruelty, hate, etc., are tools for ministry, and for being double minded, but nowhere have I judged you. Get a clue.Originally posted by Nineveh

Not only do you misunderstand what Christ and Paul have said, you seem to need to twist what I say so you will have a leg to stand on. You aren't being honest, perhaps you should have quit replying when you had some semblance of respect as a debate partner.I had some semblance of respect as a debate partner? :crackup:

Well, maybe I still do then, because I wasn't and haven't been being dishonest. I have been very honest with you, and I have once again put myself out there to be abused while I try to help you. And perhaps one day, if not today, maybe you will understand exactly what I was trying to communicate to you and why.Originally posted by Nineveh

Don't even offer a false hope whatever I would say on the issue might have some bearing on your twisted theology.Oh, then I guess you aren't a dispensationalist. Several of them have told me it is because Peter's vision that pork is now clean meat. Ironically, they also tell me Peter remained under the law as part of Israel. So it would seem that Paul should have had the vision instead of Peter if the vision was about pork suddenly being clean meat for Gentiles, especially since pork still wasn't clean for Peter after his vision. Hey, but if you're not a dispy, then forget that point.Originally posted by Nineveh

It's obvious you need to keep the Law. So, as a weaker one ( see Paul for the definition ), have at it.Nin, you know that's not true. I'm under grace, not under the law. Everything I have said is to point out your legalism to you. I removed that log a while ago, and now I am trying to help you with your rather large speck.Originally posted by Nineveh

BIG words from the sodomite supporter.Do you mean homosexual supporter? Sodomite has come to mean several things, none of which is supported by the biblical understanding of the sins of sodom. If you are implying a sodomite is some that engages in sodomy, then that could be either a homosexual or heterosexual. So are you claiming I am supporting specific sexual acts, specific persons who are homosexual, or what?

And your statement is just another straw man. BIG words from the legalist.Originally posted by Nineveh

Me a legalist? :darwinsm:Yes. That's how I see it, Nin..Originally posted by Nineveh

If I am, it's only because you keep trying to put me under the Law with you. No thanks. I have Grace:) I have not even attempted to put you under the law. That would require me saying (like you did for the homosexual) that you must be sorry and stop breaking the Sabbath, and stop eating pork TO OBTAIN RIGHTEOUSNESS. Since I don't believe that, and never said that, your understanding of the matter is retarded, to say the least.

Now if you want to let this discussion die, then by all means do so; or feel free to explain your position without making unsubstantiated accusations against me. If you do it without misrepresenting me again, I will actually let you have the last word (maybe). ;)

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by elohiym

Nope. I didn't say I wasn't going to respond if you said something silly. You did. You claimed that I don't listen to Paul; but in reality, it is you who are not listening to Paul or Jesus.

What a crock lol

You seem to like to only focus on one verse out of context, so let's see what you really. Let's look at your whole "verse":

"Needless to say, I am through with our discussion. Let the reader decide which one of us speaks the truth."

So, instead of admitting your fib, you make it worse lol

Really? Did Paul tell you he was talking about the Sabbath in that verse?

Why yes, it appears he is talking about the sabbath, and to be quite frank, other Law too.

I don't see the Sabbath mentioned there at all.

I'm not surprized at that. Like dave miller, you see everything as sin but what God calls sin.

I think you assume too much, and don't consider that Paul could have been talking about other days in Roman culture, especially since there is nothing in the law about having to eat vegetables as opposed to meat. So to assume it is the Sabbath law he is talking about is a stretch, to say the least.

I know it's hard for you to live under Grace, weaker one.

Here is what Paul said about the Sabbath:The Sabbath was/is a shadow of something in the future, like the Passover lamb was a shadow of Jesus.

Share the verse so we can look at it in context.

Could one have eliminated the lamb from Passover observance before Jesus was crucified? No. Neither would Paul be implying not to keep the Sabbath, since it was stiil a shadow yet to come (future).

But he did. And when you judge me for holding all days the same, you are violating what Paul was teaching here. See....

When you keep the Law for righeousness sake, you wind up being "puffed up" because you think, "Look at me! See what I can do? And look at these less than "Christians", who aren't as good as me." To be quite frank, that's exactly the attitude you have, too. Christ saves, not Christ + the Law (any part of it). That's why Paul got angry over circumcision being taught to his converts, and Peter agreed with him.

Here is the Sabbath pictured in the future...Now unless you don't plan to be on the new earth, you will observe the Sabbath then.

I am free of the Law, I am dead to the Law. If you want to live under the Law, that's your choice. But as I said earlier, for your righteousness sake, you will fail.

Furthermore, where is the controversy over Paul supposedly teaching Christians shouldn't observe the Sabbath? Had he really taught that, it would have created a controversy like when his views on circumcision did. The absence of any controversy also suggests that Paul never told anyone not to observe the Sabbath.

No, the problem comes in because the Law is your source of righteousness and you are terrified to give it up for the better Way of Grace. You think there is just one thing or a whole host of things you can do to make yourself righteous.

That makes you self- righteous, I feel sorry for you come Judgement Day.

BUT... Paul clearly stated I shoudn't let anyone judge me for observing the Sabbath, NOT for not observing the Sabbath.

Ohhhhhhh

So he was talking about the sabbath then? LOL

Yes, he was, but only when it suits your purpose?

*MARKED*: You are being dishonest.

The funny thing is, I'm not judging you for keeping the sabbath, weaker one. You are judging me for not keeping it.

Those under grace are not under any law, but that has zip to do with observing the Sabbath.

Wow...

Ok, so Grace has nothing to do with the Law, except that one.

Are you under the law when you refrain from adultery, murder, or idol worship? No. And neither is anyone for observing the seventh-day Sabbath under grace.

How many times have I said, if you need to cling to that Law, feel free, weaker one.

Well, if I was keeping the law for righteousness, I would hope that you would stand in my way to help me; but I don't and can't keep any laws for righteousness, so your assertion that I "insist on keeping the Law" for my righteousness is rediculous. You?

Me? I'm not required to hold one day as holy, I am firmly convinced in my own mind I would rather hold all days in the same esteem. So quit judging me about it :)

Let's see why I think you are a legalist...

I don't really care what you think :)

I said about you: "...implying that they put themselves under it by breaking it..." To which you answered:


Nope, that's your belief. I never said anything of the sort.

Oh, but you certainly implied it, like I said. Let's review a key part of our dialogue...

Nin: "God accepts an unrepentant homosexual?"

I can't help what you want to read into my reply so you can uphold sodomites as holy.

(It appears you are asking me if God will accept an unrepentant homosexual. So to clarify what you mean by unrepentant I ask...)

Elo: "What is an unrepentant homosexual?"

Nin: "A homosexual who hasn't repented."

(Sarcastic and evasive, but why? I rephrased it for clarity. So I asked if a repentant homosexual can be defined as follows...)

Elo: "Is that a homosexual that has stopped having homosexual sex?"

Nin: "Stopped because he is sorry? or Stopped because he is dying of AIDS?"

(Sarcastic and evasive again, yet you must have known what I was asking.)

No, what I see is you trying to offer Grace to those who have not repented of their sins. In so doing, you try to force me to say something I don't believe.

So what am I to understand from that dialogue? Simple, you expect a homosexual to repent by ceasing from his homosexuality. You want him to stop because he is sorry, and that is how you define repentance for the homosexual.

Why should a homo be any different than the rest of the world?

Are you trying to give them a free pass because it's a sin you hold close to your own heart?

But what law is the homosexual under if the homosexual is a Christian like you. As a Christian, you break the Sabbath and eat pork (I assume), yet you did not stop breaking those laws, and you apparently aren't even sorry for breaking those laws. Still, you get grace and freedom from the law.

Once again,weaker one, you need to cling to the Law, not me. Is this the root of your clinging to the Sabbath? If there is just one Law you need to follow, you can warp that into cleansing a sodomite of sodomy?

Even the sodomites must repent of their sins.

However, you still want the homosexual to be sorry and stop his law breaking in order for him to be repentant.

Changing the definiton of repentance?

Thus, you have either used grace as a license to sin for yourself, or you are putting a homosexual under the law to earn grace.

And Paul said:

What the Law says, it says to those under the Law.

Do you not grasp that concept?

You may be doing both. That is legalism, my dear.

Personally I see the difference between Law and Grace. It's you that seems to stumble, keeping the few you feel you need to cling to, weaker one.

Plain and simple. You can cry all you want that it isn't legalism, but it is.

I'm not the one throwing a fit lol So you can cry all you want that I'm a legalist, but you should save it for when you keep your next Sabbath :)

I just explained why I believe you are a legalist. As for me judging you, and being a hypocrit because I am supposedly judging you for judging is a straw man.

I've noticed here at TOL, the ones who proclaim themselves to be the least judgmental are the biggest hypocrites of all. You are no different. In fact, you rank #2 right after sybel101 and right above wickwoman.

Call me what you want. I know I haven't judged you, nor have I judged you for judging.

Right lol

You keep the Sabbath and I am what for not keeping the Sabbath?

I have been rebuking you for sniping at my wife,

*MARKED* You are being dishonest.

Firstly you refuse to read the thread. Secondly you have to judge to determine if someone needs rebuked. And lastly, the only thing you said was for me to "get my husband, because you had nothing to say to me".

The last being another obvious fib.

Instead of being decietful, why not start another thread and you and I will go over Gerald's "miracle" thread. It's obvious you want to say something (to me, instead of my husband) about it lol

misrepresenting Jesus in relationship to his judgement,

Same back 'atcha.

suggesting that cruelty, hate, etc., are tools for ministry,

*MARKED* You are being dishonest. We went over this.

and for being double minded,

... so much for being "non judgemental". Hypocrite. You even provide a list of your judgements.

but nowhere have I judged you.

:darwinsm:

Hypocrite.

Get a clue.I had some semblance of respect as a debate partner? :crackup:

You are right, you don't.

But I did try to think you were respectful enough to debate. Thanks for clearly showing, and admitting you have no respect.

Well, maybe I still do then, because I wasn't and haven't been being dishonest.

:crackup:

BWAHAHAHAHAHahahahahaha

I have been very honest with you, and I have once again put myself out there to be abused while I try to help you.

Physician, heal thyself.

And perhaps one day, if not today, maybe you will understand exactly what I was trying to communicate to you and why.

Here's what I get so far:

Everyone but homos need to repent and keep only the Sabbath and food law about pork.

Oh, then I guess you aren't a dispensationalist.

Yes, I am. But thanks for asking lol

Several of them have told me it is because Peter's vision that pork is now clean meat. Ironically, they also tell me Peter remained under the law as part of Israel.

Obviously, you aren't a dispy.

So it would seem that Paul should have had the vision instead of Peter if the vision was about pork suddenly being clean meat for Gentiles, especially since pork still wasn't clean for Peter after his vision.

Paul already knew Gentiles were in, it was Peter having trouble with the concept.

Hey, but if you're not a dispy, then forget that point.Nin, you know that's not true.

I think your ignorance is a fine marker to judge where I am getting things right :)

I'm under grace, not under the law.

Except the Sabbath.....

Everything I have said is to point out your legalism to you.

And if I start keeping the Sabbath Law, I'm fine in your book? lol

I removed that log a while ago, and now I am trying to help you with your rather large speck.

Weaker one, I don't want to be put back under the Law, not even the parts you feel are necessary for you to keep.

Do you mean homosexual supporter? Sodomite has come to mean several things, none of which is supported by the biblical understanding of the sins of sodom.

Except the part where "all the men both young and old" wanted to "have sex" with the male visitors of Lot.

If you are implying a sodomite is some that engages in sodomy,

Sodomite.... sodomy.... I'm seeing a relation there....

then that could be either a homosexual or heterosexual. So are you claiming I am supporting specific sexual acts, specific persons who are homosexual, or what?

If you wanna be a rube, who am I to stand in your way?

And your statement is just another straw man.

Do you even know what that term means?

BIG words from the legalist.

Remeber that on your Sabbath keeping day :)

Yes. That's how I see it, Nin..

Judge all ya want :)

I'm still gunna stick with Grace.

I have not even attempted to put you under the law.

Well.....

Except when you outright said I was breaking the Law:
"yet you claim to not be under the law even though you are breaking it presently"

And when you have accused me of being a "pork eater". And how wrong I am for holding all days the same instead of keeping the Sabbath Law....

All except for those instances lol

That would require me saying (like you did for the homosexual) that you must be sorry and stop breaking the Sabbath, and stop eating pork TO OBTAIN RIGHTEOUSNESS. Since I don't believe that, and never said that, your understanding of the matter is retarded, to say the least.

I can't break a Law that I'm dead to. WHAT THE LAW SAYS IT SAYS TO THOSE UNDER THE LAW. Get it yet? Talk about retarded.

Now if you want to let this discussion die,

Another fib?

then by all means do so; or feel free to explain your position without making unsubstantiated accusations against me. If you do it without misrepresenting me again, I will actually let you have the last word (maybe). ;)

All I can say to you is, you have 3 fingers pointing back at your right now. You have to option to quit pointing any time you want.

[elohiym]

Nineveh,

You totally misrepresented me, again. My last post was very clear and straight forward. If you still don't get what I have been attempting to communicate to you, so be it....because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.Never have I put you under the law! If you claim homosexuals are breaking the law, while you break the law by not keeping the Sabbath, then you are under the law, and you are double-minded--YOU put yourself under the law, and I am pointing out to you that you have done so.

Plenty of people don't rest on the Sabbath, but are not under the law, since they don't put other people under the law to judge and condemn them. You have double standards, and are twisting Paul's words to perfect a license to sin and judge others. That's your choice, but Jesus' words will judge you on the Day of the Lord.

Again, no person can keep the law for righteousness, not me, not you, not a homosexual. You can't keep the Sabbath for righteousness, and a homosexual can't cease from homosexuality for righteousness. Sabbath breaking is a capital offense, like murder. Jesus said he would not change one jot or tittle from the law, so Paul couldn't change, mitigate, or abolish the Sabbath law.

You ought to pray about this, and factor in that your fellow dispys have told me that a homosexual can become a Christian and fall back to homosexual sex and still retain his salvation. More legalism. Now who supports homosexuality? :down:

Anyway, you've been exposed as a legalist, Nin. Take care!

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by elohiym

You totally misrepresented me, again. My last post was very clear and straight forward. If you still don't get what I have been attempting to communicate to you, so be it.

I've noticed you say something, then before you hit the period at the end of your sentence, you deny saying it lol

Never have I put you under the law!

Repeatedly. So, If you can repeat yourself, so can I :)

"Well.....

Except when you outright said I was breaking the Law:
"yet you claim to not be under the law even though you are breaking it presently"

And when you have accused me of being a "pork eater". And how wrong I am for holding all days the same instead of keeping the Sabbath Law...."

All except for those instances lol"

If you claim homosexuals are breaking the law, while you break the law by not keeping the Sabbath, then you are under the law, and you are double-minded--YOU put yourself under the law, and I am pointing out to you that you have done so.

I

am

under

Grace.

Not

the

Law.

What

the

Law

says,

it

says

to

those

under

the

Law.

Was that slow enough for you to grab onto it that time?

Plenty of people don't rest on the Sabbath, but are not under the law, since they don't put other people under the law to judge and condemn them.

But you seem to be doing just that. So quit.

You have double standards, and are twisting Paul's words to perfect a license to sin and judge others. That's your choice, but Jesus' words will judge you on the Day of the Lord.

This is the second time you have accused me of sinning. Name it or hush your foolish tongue.

Again, no person can keep the law for righteousness, not me, not you, not a homosexual. You can't keep the Sabbath for righteousness, and a homosexual can't cease from homosexuality for righteousness. Sabbath breaking is a capital offense, like murder. Jesus said he would not change one jot or tittle from the law, so Paul couldn't change, mitigate, or abolish the Sabbath law.

It seems to me you keep accusing me of what you do.

You want to liberate a homo from his need to repent like the rest of the world. It appears you desire people continue in their sin so that Grace may abound. Know what Paul had to say about that?

You ought to pray about this,

Why do I need to pray to know that sodomy is a sin? OT & NT both support the need for sodomites to repent.

and factor in that your fellow dispys have told me that a homosexual can become a Christian and fall back to homosexual sex and still retain his salvation. More legalism. Now who supports homosexuality? :down:

Stuggles in the flesh can't take away salvation any more than works can attain it.

Anyway, you've been exposed as a legalist, Nin. Take care!

I've pointed to Grace how many times?

How many times have you pointed back to Sabbath keeping and "pork" rules?