Jesus came for the sinners not to condemn but to give eternal life. In this we are all sinners, and in the same boat. In short Jesus came for us all, doesn’t matter what we have done.
I am leaving out those who condemns others by the law, who Jesus correctly identifies as sons of the devil. They will get what they deserve.
You are leaving out the context:
There are different conditions now, it is not the original condition, so one can not expect Matt 4-6 to be in play here. People’s hearts are hard towards each other and towards God - and this is before the marriage. This is not the garden of Eden.
In the end we will see that Christ will restore all things, it is His job to do so. We can only do it by grace.
You really like saying the “N word”, don’t you?
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=830768
I gave you the answer. Or do you only want his? :dubious:
He’s a die hard atheist. Hard core.
You gave THE answer? There is no other opinion anyone can have? Maybe he wants UrbanRedneck’s opinion on the matter?
He has been the one I have been quoting…but it so nice that you have “The Answer”. BTW, what would you say if your “Answer” didn’t match up with his(providing he ever got around to giving it, that is).
So, only you and he can post in this thread?
I am a Christian. I am a Lutheran. I believe I may know the answer (though indicating one knows the will of God completely is somewhat presumptuous). I believe what were see in Acts 10 is not just about food but about people. Do not call anything unclean that the Lord has made clean and then Peter was told to go eat with a Gentile Centurion - unclean. The folks in Jerusalem were scandalized - but after the story was told they accepted it. LGBTQ people are made clean by God. They don’t have sex with the same gender due to excessive lust (as was thought by then) but because they were created that way. Jesus would love then and stand by them as he did with other marginalized.
God sent the Holy Spirit for just this reason - to continue to educate us about God when we are ready to hear the Truth.
So that’s the answer I think I know as a practicing Christian. What’s yours?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
If you are a believer and you feel that is the answer the holy spirit has revealed to you then I have no quarrel. Only God knows all.
Its when an atheist or non believer starts asking because they havent first accepted Christ.
WTF?? I just asked you a question-How do you take from that I don’t want you to post?
Nothing like linking to a two year thread for proof, is there? Now I know how Mark Furman felt.
I don’t use that word. Plain and simple. I may elude to it, and I do know people who act in that stereotype way.
Would Jesus use that word? I don’t think so.
I do have a image of the man opening s theme park called “Jollywood.” THAT would make one helluva movie.
I think a big problem with the Old Testament is that people don’t see the difference between a Theological Mandate and a Social Mandate.
Example:
Theological: Thou shall not kill.
Social: Do not eat pork.
When the people left Egypt, they were given a ton of rules and regulations about how they needed to live. Those were all Social Mandates designed for THOSE people in THAT situation at THAT time. To insist on applying them to a totally different society in a totally different time is absurd. Yet, that is what many people do.
Suppose you, a Christian, read the Koran. As a non-believer, would you have the right to ask questions and have opinions about what you were reading? Would you have the right to ask what would Mohammed think or do about a particular subject? Would your non-belief disqualify any such questions?
Who makes the determination though (knowing that the Holy Spirit may speak to different people in different ways)? What if I was to say that the verses against LGBTQ people appear to me to be social mandates? After all, during that time they thought same-sex sex was a function of lust, not a loving relationship based on orientation. Also during the pre-Jesus period, Israel & Judea were small countries surrounded by large empires on all sides during its history (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, etc) - perhaps they wanted the people of Israel and Judea to have lots of babies to be able to counter the power of those empires and same-sex relationships don’t produce that.
Well, this is disappointing to learn that as a non-follower of Christ I have no valid concern about his character and teachings. I’ve read so many good things about him and his return would be enormously interesting.
I’m interested in how other people’s minds work.
Different Christians keep coming up with different answers.
Unfortunately, I’m not allowed to consider them meaningless, because people keep trying to make civil law based on them.
They’re meaningless to me in that I don’t consider them evidence, yes. But I share the country and the community with people who do consider they have meaning. And they share it with me – why should I not be part of the conversation? That is, I’m not going to come into the church and dispute with the preacher. But this is a public message board.
I’ve talked to many radical Christians today who still believe this!
Can two people of the same sex having the same loving relationship as two people of the opposite sex?
No, because it’s not based on love. Just lust.
Of course, they’ve also told me that my sister can’t have a wife (so I now call my SIL my sister’s legally wedded wife), and the children my SIL had and my sister adopted are not my nieces.
Jasmine:
For those of us who believe it was dictated by G-d, how can there be a difference? The word of G-d is the word of G-d.
The Bible says that its laws are for all generations. If one puts any stock at all in the Bible being of divine origin, then it is certainly not absurd to insist that they are as relevant to us today as they were to “THOSE people at THAT time.”
I think I’ll move along now. I don’t know how to debate scripture literalists.