|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 24, 2008 14:45:47 GMT -5
Do you mean the particular food itself, the way they prepared the food, or simply that they had touched it?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 23, 2008 20:58:24 GMT -5
What's your relationship like with your actual mother? Is she alive? Do you talk to her?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 23, 2008 20:13:24 GMT -5
Hi Ross, you misunderstood me. It didn't occur to me that it could seem like I was justifying homosexuality for a christian. Sorry about that. I'll try to explain. I quoted the phrase in yellow from kenm's post because it was the concept that I was addressing by using the following bible verses. Not because I was affirming the concept. I do not affirm the concept and can't imagine how it could possibly be valid. Saved 1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Php 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehendedI think it is weird the way people talk about are you saved or not. "I got saved" - I hear that often and I think that a shallow understanding of the biblical concept of salvation leads to weird problems like was a person saved at this time or that time. Saved from sinning would be a different topic but using it that way certainly excludes homosexuals. Accountability Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.Here I was showing how Paul taught that homosexuality came from the lusts of men's hearts (for which they are accountable) and also that they knew that those who did such things deserved death. Error Gen 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife. Gen 20:6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her. Jud 1:24 ...him that is able to keep you from falling... 2Th 3:3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.If someone was "saved" (following the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, strength) then why would God wait to keep them from committing gross abomination and making themselves an abomination to Him? Gospel Heb 6:1-2 ...the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.Repentance is foundational. Period. Repentance is not something that you add onto "being saved" after the fact. I think that's based on a wrong idea of salvation. Christians 1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.Aren't homosexual like twice perverted fornicators? Also no one can love someone as Jesus loved us and commit abomination with them at the same time. I hope that's more encouraging than the first impression it made. If I thought someone was using those passages to justify homosexuality it would make me pretty angry. Sorry again. Maybe I should have added a conclusion at the end or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 23, 2008 19:32:57 GMT -5
Jack, what about the passover? Do you believe it must be kept?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 23, 2008 14:23:15 GMT -5
Is that written to me? I wasn't sure what it was referencing.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 22, 2008 22:59:35 GMT -5
Saved 1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Php 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended
Accountability Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Error Gen 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife. Gen 20:6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her. Jud 1:24 ...him that is able to keep you from falling... 2Th 3:3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.
Gospel Heb 6:1-2 ...the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Christians 1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 22, 2008 18:18:08 GMT -5
Should you call anyone a stupid man? Do you know how his heart was before God when he died? I think he wrote a lot of stupid things but isn't that different than calling him a stupid man?
I wasn't making any comment on the church of Ratzinger by posting this.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 21, 2008 15:02:28 GMT -5
Jack, can you give a list of examples from the NT of Christians making the transition from Acts 15:20 to full obedience to the torah?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 20, 2008 21:29:49 GMT -5
thanks for clarifying Jesse. I think I had lost track of the conversation a bit.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 20, 2008 20:08:03 GMT -5
Wis 1:12 Seek not death in the error of your life: and pull not upon yourselves destruction with the works of your hands. Wis 1:13 For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. Wis 1:14 For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth: Wis 1:15 (For righteousness is immortal) Wis 1:16 But ungodly men with their works and words called it to them[selves]: for when they thought to have it their friend, they consumed to nought, and made a covenant with it, because they are worthy to take part with it.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 20, 2008 19:43:40 GMT -5
Jesse, were you just adding what I said as being in agreement? Sorry, I couldn't tell if you misunderstood or not.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 20, 2008 19:39:48 GMT -5
Pro 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me. Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 20, 2008 19:24:32 GMT -5
I've even seen people say we're born with a free will but only "free" to sin. Like a laboratory mouse in a maze.
|
|
|
coexist
Dec 20, 2008 18:46:43 GMT -5
Post by benjoseph on Dec 20, 2008 18:46:43 GMT -5
Amen Eric. Very fitting. Son 5:9 What is your Beloved more than another beloved, most beautiful among women? What is your Beloved more than another beloved, that you adjure us so? Son 5:10 My Beloved is bright and ruddy, standing out among ten thousand.
Thanks Kerrigan. That same train of thought led me to make this. I was thinking of putting "careful what you wish for" on it...as in coexisting in hell... but I changed my mind when I thought of putting the color on the cross and making it the focus. I didn't spend as much time selecting the symbols in the fire as I could have. There are probably a lot more that belong down there.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 20, 2008 18:37:29 GMT -5
Great job!
I was going to call in and ask about Exo 32:33 but it popped into my mind so suddenly that I was laughing too much to call..
..Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
Pat (? I didn't catch his last name) brought up the whole idea of salvation by works. Now, Kerrigan, I've heard you say (maybe in those excellent TULIP videos) something similar the "T", the Total Depravity/Original Sin being the foundation for the whole thing, (ie. If you remove the "T" then the whole system falls apart.) I agree, but what occurred to me when Pat mentioned salvation by works instead of faith alone (which I've heard a few times now) is that it is actually SIN that is the foundation of the whole thing and in the construction of the doctrines it should actually be read backwards. They present it as T, U, L, I, P, but it should be understood SIN, P, I, L, U, T. The "T" ends up being the the whitewash on the exterior because it supposedly glorifies God. My understanding of "P" was that it was the initial excusing of sin and that the rest of the doctrines, working in reverse, are attempts to justify "P" (sin).
If there's no "P" then you can't sin. If there's no "I" then "P" is a joke. If there's no "L" then "I" = universalism. If there's no "U" then "L" makes it like the JW's 144,000. If there's no "T" then "U" is unfair. And if "T" isn't ultimately part of God's plan then then you have to stop sinning.
|
|
|
coexist
Dec 20, 2008 5:25:15 GMT -5
Post by benjoseph on Dec 20, 2008 5:25:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 19, 2008 19:48:14 GMT -5
This is a just a minor comment: I don't think this word histemi means 'stand in' or 'abide in'. It seems more accurate to translate it 'we establish the law'. It's used a lot in the NT but it didn't seem like it would be used to mean 'stand in' unless the preposition 'en' was added. I don't think that particular verse says 'we abide in the law' or 'we stand in the law.' It seems more like it says 'we cause the law to abide', 'we cause the law to stand,' etc. hence the word 'establish.'
(eg. Rev 19:17 describes an angel histemi en the sun)
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 19, 2008 11:36:12 GMT -5
Hi Eric. I'm sorry I wasn't more specific. I meant "natural" as in someone who willingly is serving their own flesh.Because every single human does? Is that what you mean? I'm still studying that. However, as I've heard people say, if they can be born predisposed to sin then they can be born predisposed to homosexuality.Only perfect faith/obedience would make a man righteous before God. That's what Jesus did. He did not need a sacrifice for sins because he was perfectly righteous. He never doubted or rejected God like you and I. We can only be justified by God's grace having forgiveness through the shed blood of Jesus. If we had not sinned we would stand justified.If they reject knowledge given them they become lost but if they are unwaveringly faithful to their conscience and the knowledge of God that is evident in creation they will seek God and He will show them the truth.Amen.If they are faithful in what they know won't God draw them to Him? Won't they naturally believe He exists and understand that He rewards those who diligently seek Him?Yes because repentance by itself does not justify you. If you murder someone and repent of it in court, are you justified by that? No. If a sinner could live perfectly for 60 years and die he would still be unjustified without faith in Jesus' blood.This is what it sounds like: Adam sinned therefore there's distance from God therefore all men are bound to sin without exception.
Why do you think Adam's sin has separated us from God? The bible says YOUR sins have separated between you and God. The entire scriptures are full of interaction between God and people.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 19, 2008 0:00:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 18, 2008 23:41:17 GMT -5
When Adolf Hitler judged men for the way they were born that was an example of what I meant by partiality.
Here is the same question rephrased:
a) Is judging men for the way they are born godliness (being like God) or ungodliness (being unlike God)?
b) Was Adolf Hitler portraying God's character when he caused men, women, and children to be thrown into fires because of the way they were born?
c) If I tie up a person and toss them into molten lava because of the way they were born, would I be acting like God?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 18, 2008 20:16:47 GMT -5
I'm not referring to either of those scriptures. If you show partiality is it godliness or ungodliness?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 18, 2008 18:59:05 GMT -5
By Jesus Christ. That's the whole point of the gospel is that "natural" men would turn and live according to God's Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 18, 2008 18:28:07 GMT -5
Arbitrary: based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice
God's individual discretion or preferences will always be just because He is just. God "individually prefers" justice.
My guess is that tbxi would agree that, based on that, God is allowed to be arbitrary.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 18, 2008 16:46:50 GMT -5
Is it godly or ungodly to show partiality?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 18, 2008 16:20:14 GMT -5
No, I knew what you meant didn't I? It's because you deny the definition of the word justice. As long as you deny that justice is definable in non-mysterious terms you are unqualified to teach or argue from scripture. If you say that the word Justice is the secret will of God that contradicts the English definition of that same word Justice then you aren't even qualified to form sentences or think coherent thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 18, 2008 15:33:36 GMT -5
I didn't cite any of the passages you brought up. You have to graduate vocabulary class before you can read scripture. You are not even qualified to cite scripture.
Please define egalitarianism if you want me to address that statement about impartiality. I looked it up but the definitions seemed vague enough where I can't be sure I understand why you brought it up.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 18, 2008 14:23:43 GMT -5
Either the writer is reprobate or the writer knows the answer but hates it.
Definitions: Fair, Due Reward, Punishment, Deserved: Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth Favoritism, Bias: Unequal Measures
All Justice is Free from favoritism or bias. No Unmerited reprobation is Free from favoritism or bias. No Unmerited reprobation is Justice.
All Justice is Fair to all parties. No Unmerited reprobation is Fair to all parties. No Unmerited reprobation is Justice.
All Justice is The due reward or punishment for an act. No Unmerited reprobation is The due reward or punishment for an act. No Unmerited reprobation is Justice.
All Justice is a getting of what is deserved. No Unmerited reprobation is a getting of what is deserved. No Unmerited reprobation is Justice.
At the grocery store they have real people in the checkout lines and they also have mechanized checkout lines. The human employees require upkeep just like the robot "employees". The human's are provided with wages and perform self maintenance whereas the machines require the employers direct care. If the employer refuses to maintain one of the machines in working order it will break down eventually and have to be thrown out. If the employer refuses to pay the human employee his/her wages that employee will eventually be unable to maintain him or herself and will have to leave their position. Only one of these situations in unjust.
Now that you know what unjust means, you can calculate what just means. Wages are only earned, owed, deserved, etc. by the employee who has the faculty to choose to show up to work or not to show up. Since human beings are made in God's image and posses these faculties they are capable of deserving, earning, etc. The machines are inanimate objects that are not made in God's image and can not make moral choices and can not earn or deserve anything. It is impossible to rob a machine of justice.
The bible says the wages of sin is death.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 22:39:35 GMT -5
I regret this stupid joke from the first page. I'm sorry for mocking and I won't do it anymore. If you want, you can still extract the basic statement from it minus the prideful humor.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 21:22:15 GMT -5
No way.
Like I said, I don't know the biological details of how it happened.
What do you mean without Mary? I'm not saying without Mary.
?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 20:38:09 GMT -5
Only by name. Is that in regard to my not affirming two natures?
Because they're two entirely different verbs. That is like saying: How can stones become bread without obtaining bread?
|
|