9-10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Quick question. When Christ was crucified between 2 others, what did He say to one of them?
If I said you were a slave to fashion, what would you understand me to be claiming?
For that matter, I don’t see much concern about rare juicy steaks.
I’m not taking about Dan’s career as a whole, but about this specific speech he made.
He said, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
And of course you think He was talking to a thief.
But that thief (Dismas, in the Catholic tradition, although never actually named in Scripture) had repented of his thievery. So I’d say it’s more accurate to characterize Dismas as a former thief.
It doesn’t matter. Jesus made it clear that he did not come to break the law but to uphold it. No matter how they try to weasel out of it, by coming up with ideas of new covenants, christians are as bound by the rules in the old testament as the hebrews ever were.
Are you under the impression that rare juicy steaks have blood in them?
I think, when considering this quote, it’s pretty clear that when coupled with Jesus’ teachings regarding adultery (“But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”)that in order to avoid charges of hypocrisy any Christian that relies on the Bible to oppose homosexual behavior must also oppose re-marriage of divorcees and no-fault divorce.
Agreed, Bricker?
Dunno what this has to do with anything, but then again I’m still trying to figure out where got the notion that the exhortation to slaves to obey their masters is limited to cases where the civil law supports the institution (or maybe it’s just limited to cases where the masters put sugar on the slaves’ porridge).
This all prompts the question: Why was there even a New Testament in the first place? What was wrong with the old one? XD Hahaha. 
Regardless of which book you draw from, you absolutely have to cherry pick nowadays. You don’t get your morality from the Bible, and anyone who pretends to do so can be demonstrably shown otherwise and hung out for embarrassment. People get their morality from a variety of other sources and then some misattribute the good parts to the Bible. Of course, this exact practice is how people justify basically whatever the hell they want.
As for Savage, his use of “pansy-ass” is actually in line with my primary criticism of him. I tend to agree with most of what he says (and enthusiastically so) but I feel he really sends a mixed message when he uses gay slurs from time to time. I think he does it as an attempt to “de-power” those words (in much the same way that you’re giving power to Voldemort by not speaking his name ) but sometimes I feel the effect doesn’t pull through.
Those students who walked out were not covering the event, they were there to be educated, entertained, and inspired. Having Savage attack their religion does none of these things and in no way relates to journalism. Savage is an advocate, not a journalist and he should never have been invited. Those kids did the exact right thing in walking out. The coverage of his group borders on journalistic malpractice anyway. That group and the media outlets which enable it have probably killed more people than they have helped.
Savage’s points were ridiculous anyway. The idea that bullys consult the Old Testament before deciding who to bully is self-evidently nonsense. There is no connection between bullying and the Old Testament. Savage obviously just hates religious people and wanted to insult them in front of their peers. His use of homophobic slurs to insult people who disagree with him shows his true colors.
He is trying to confuse people by equating bullying teenagers with opposing the gay agenda in society. He knows that his arguments are weak so to avoid making them he pretends that to oppose his point of view is to be pro bullying.
Thank you, you make my point. So Cor 9-10 are only if one hasnt asked for forgiveness.
Man has forever “massaged” the Word of God to fit their lives. But that is Mans doing, not Gods.
That being said, Monogamy has only been disallowed recently in terms of time comparison. There are many instances of multiple wives in the Bible.
He was editor in chief of a weekly newspaper for six years and he’s been a published advice columnist for 20 years. Sorry, but he’s a journalist by any standard- and I have to point out the irony of making an incorrect claim that someone is not a journalist. Google would have set you straight. He’s not a reporter, but he’s got more than enough experience to justify inviting him to speak to high school journalists. That’s especially true because his advocacy has focused on high-school age kids.
This is one of the most confusing and absurd things I have ever read. His strongest advocacy has been encouraging kids who are bullied that they shouldn’t kill themselves because the bullying will end.
He’s not shy about his support for the so-called gay agenda, so he’s not confusing anybody. He’s been successful at drawing attention to the issue of kids getting bullied, and gay kids in particular, and it’s a good cause. Both causes, in fact, are good.
Yeah, but are the students going to see the distinction? Probably not.
If he was trying to campaign against bullying here, he went about it in the worst way.
What’s that second one again?
I’m guessing maybe he tried to redefine “Saddleback”? Just a guess though, as I’ve never heard of it.
Saddlebacking. ETA: ninja’d, but yes, that is indeed the term.
I don’t think the kids are going to get bullied. I do think Savage shouldn’t have insulted them.
Yes.