1. a continuing increase in the divorce rate

2. women teaching men in more churches, almost all churches, even the "orthodox" ones.

3. modern heathen practices such as dance, drama, and MUSIC, MUSIC, MUSIC.

4. "social" gospels more concerned with giving meals and English as a "second" language; as opposed to bringing the true gospel.

5. many churches stop believing in the Bible as inspired altogether.

6. the decrease in use of faithful Bible versions such as the KJV and ASV in favor of "paraphrase" Bibles like the NIV or "the message".

7. an even more increased acceptance of homosexuality, both in and out of the pulpit and of homosexual "marriage".

8. deeper sin and rebellion from mankind amidst this bakdrop of heresy in the last days church gone apostate.

I get my calenders mixed up: isn't 2006 really Y2K or the end of the 6th day? Maybe some REST next year?

Prophecy gave plenty of marks for the first advent and the CLERGY missed every one of them: are we likely to be any smarter?

I have the distinct feeling that things are HAPPENING which are spiritually discerned. I hope so. The massive, hostile takeover of the MUSICATORS fits revelation 18 perfectly. The "Locusts" with stingers in their tails will be standing in the holy places next Sunday and they will all be telling Jesus: "Shut your mouth." They will finish DRIVING OUT those with the MARK OF THE WORD and collecting those with the MARK OF THE BEAST (Zoe) to AFFLICT them and make them FEEL that they are having a spiritual climactic experience (ala Carol Wimber, Vineyard).

Because of the INVENTION of the Missional Church Madness I am certain that Satan knows that his "miracles" of church growth and temple building has been stretched to its limit. The mega churches will keep on robbing working people and building BIGGER BARNS which they boast about.

The majority of the churches will settle back into a Jimmy Carter Malaise and the RIGHT WING will grow stronger fueled by the LIBERAL attempt to stamp them out.

More and more people will get their FREE "water of the Word" without being filtered through the sumps of PRELATAL PRIDE on the internet. We will EXORCISE more of the TITHING and GIVING DEMONS and those who see ministry as OCCUPATION will find another PROFESSION. More money will be diverted from the TAKE-90%-church sump and sent directly to evangelistic ministers.

I think that "boy plague" of the Catholic church inflicts as it has always inflicted ALL priesthoods. We will probably find churches having to LIQUIDATE just as many Catholic churches are. Many buildings will be turned into night clubs since they are already functioning as HOLY TAVERNS. Navigators survey concluded that 85% of ministers are FEMININE directed while the congregations are 85% masculine. Any performance preaching or music is the MARK of a feminist takeover as the end-time MOTHER goddess.

A significant body will abandon the doctors who DOCTRINATE and hold "school of the Bible." That will allow us to explore dogmas and the Bible without having to fabricate creeds.

If Jesus comes who is going to get your new house?

why does homosexual marriage bother you people so much?
Insecure?

Kent:

It is not a matter of insecurity as you falsely percieve; rather it goes to the point of being faithful to the Word of God, the Bible.

The Bible is the inspired Word of God; it is how God speaks to mankind today; and therefore anyone who feels otherwise is handling the Words of God in a very poor manner.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

God created Woman for man:

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." - Genesis 2:18.

Only through the union of a man and a woman can come a child and the further continuation of the human race:

"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." - Genesis 2:21-25.

So you see Kent, God created woman for man and vice-versa - do also you believe that God is insecure because of His condemnation of homosexuality, yet alone the greater sin of homosexual marriage?

JC

We all know that Kent amuses himself by reviling (using abusive language against) the church of Christ and this web site, and that he has elected to contribute nothing of any value to the biblical discussions herein. When it comes right down to it, his posts, edited of course to remove any abusive language, become quite harmless and may be regarded as a form of “therapy” or source of “release” for his obsessive, long-standing vendetta against the church of Christ. In other words, the edited posts are merely a bone thrown to pacify Kent. Now without such a beneficial, psychological release, imagine Kent “going off the deep end” by rounding up some church of Christ folks and forcing them to take that famed flying leap off a tall building.

But seriously, Kent wonders why anyone should fret or “feel insecure” about homosexual “marriages.” The answer is simple: The New Testament, more specifically the Pauline epistles, expressly forbids the practice of homosexuality, as JC reviewed previously from 1 Cor. 6:9-11. However, Kent couldn’t care less about what the NT says (he’d likely tell us to go to hell or take that leap), so let’s dismiss Kent as one who rejects the Truth of Scripture.

In 1 Cor. 6:9, the New Testament Greek uses the word arsenokoites, which is a sodomite; one who abuses/defiles himself with mankind. The modern-day translation is “homosexual.” The NT clearly condemns homosexuality.

BTW, Kent would do well to consider the word “revilers” in verse 10 above. The verse predicts a dire fate for those who revile (use abusive language against) others. But even if Kent is just having “fun” when he reviles us, abusive language still arises in the heart as abusive language, no matter how much you edit it.

I hope in 2006, homosexual relationships will be more widely accepted in the church. Christians have been so cruel in the past.

OrgName: NTS Communications
OrgID: NTSC
Address: 1220 BROADWAY
Address: SEVENTH FLOOR
City: LUBBOCK
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 79401
Country: US

NetRange: 64.185.0.0 - 64.185.63.255


Breeding steers & queers!

"Breeding steers and queers"

I knew if I put up a posting that mentioned the "H" word, I could count on the Concerned Members to respond the exact opposite of the way Christ would. Believe me, I hoped differently, but I was sure I'd get exactly what I got; either a non-response, or some kind of insult or slur. I got both!

It's no wonder the C of C is drying up. Not all in the C of C are judgemental and refuse to see past a person's sin, but there's enough that the world now knows that if they want love and true life-change to steer clear. They also know they can find it places like Saddleback.

The philosophy of "Don't Clap and Don't Worship With Instruments: all other commands fall under these two" is getting you no where. I wonder why????

Answer to no 1. Because it is sin.

Annswer to no 2. No.

Micheal Bunker does a good job of teaching on the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the difference between Judgement and Punishment.

http://lazarusunbound.com/bunker_romosexuality.shtml

I am sure Michael will agree with me:
To God be the Glory
Joe McKnight

Let’s not be too negative and hostile toward the “cruel” Christians who won’t accept homosexual relationships. After all, they’re just parroting what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. So the world could blame old Paul for writing such “cruel” and “insensitive” material. Paul obviously was a homophobe, now wasn’t he? How dare he write that homosexuals (“abusers of themselves with mankind”) will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven! That’s incredibly judgmental, isn’t it? That’s incredibly unloving, isn’t it? Homosexuals are just as capable of “love” as everybody else, only manifested in a “special” way, right? It’s “love,” any way you show it, that matters, right?

But hey, maybe old Paul wasn’t writing off the top of his head after all. Maybe he took his orders from someone else. If so, then neither the Christians nor Paul would be guilty of instigating this “cruel” and “insensitive” opposition to homosexual relationships. Maybe there’s someone else to blame. (After all, ours is a society that dearly loves to blame anyone/anything else other than itself for its own problems.) Who told Paul to write that homosexuals will not see Heaven? Who told Paul to write anything, for that matter? Paul says:

“As we said before, so say I now again, if any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:9-12 KJV).

Who told Paul to write what he did? Who’s to blame for telling the world to reject homosexual relationships? As the world would see it, who would be so “cruel,” “judgmental,” “unloving,” and “insensitive” to say that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?

THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

So let the homosexuals complain to Christ. It comes down to these choices: We can believe that what Paul wrote about homosexuals (and anything else) is the Truth as revealed to him by Jesus Christ. Or we can believe that Paul is a raving liar. Or we can even believe that for Jesus to have “revealed” anything to Paul is just a crazy myth.

Because “Brokeback Christian” (Hello, “Amazed”) hopes the Church will accept homosexual relationships, maybe s/he is admitting to being a homosexual. Whatever, s/he has already made a choice, so I need not argue further.

But what about you other readers? Would you condone and accept relationships of those whom Jesus has already promised will NOT inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?

Dear Dr. Crump:

Thank you for the gracious words; I have enjoyed your posts here for some time; I do indeed see the LORD Jesus Christ in your words; may He continue to bless you with wisdom!

JC

ok, so you think its a sin. big deal. let them burn if thats the case. but why should you people care if they get married? Are you actually harmed by it?

No Kent,

However, one may want to hide their childrens faces from public displays of homosexuality or lesbianism.

Just tell the children to face away because it's a sickness; they're sick people.

JC

well, now i see the rampant homophobia.


Their born that way you [__________]. It's not a learned behavior!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Call him Jonathan or J.C.

Readers and posters might be interested in your source or evidence or your explanation at least.

Kent:

I will concede you are right about the phobia part; the LORD Jesus Christ said not to fear those who kill the body, but those who ....

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. - Matthew 10:28.

As far as being born that way I really don't know either way, this I do know:

1.) My SOURCE is the Bible, the infallible word of God
2.) Apparently you have no respect for the Holy Bible since I have yet to see you post a Bible verse on this forum, but consider this from MY SOURCE:

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

When God saw that man was alone He created a partner for him and her name was Eve, not Steve, any little child knows that.

watch!
JC

"How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days! - Daniel 12:12.

kent/all:

when I said they are sick, I mean spiritually sick, I did not physically sick.

You apparently cannot discern spiritual things however; that which is of the flesh is flesh and that which is of the Spirit is spiritual.

John 3:6 - That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Romans 8:1 - There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. - Galatians 6:8.

Read the Holy Bible, that's where truth is! +

Kent and Brokeback Christian seemed to have missed the "Christianity Boat" here. They are basing their opinions on how they FEEL and not what God SAID.

Loving and accepting are two distinct actions. One may love someone and not accept their actions, or accept their actions but not love them. The two are NOT mutually exclusive.

Take for instance one of my best friends. She is great friend, loyal, kind, caring, gentle, funny, etc. She is everything I could hope for in a friend, except she is gay. Yes, you heard me Kent, GAY. As in a Lesbian, etc... Do I love her as my friend? Of course I do. I hope I'm just as good a friend to her as she is to me. Do I accept her lifestyle? No, I am very strongly against it. And she knows that and accepts that I have always been honest about my beliefs on the matter. She knows why and she understands why. She's read the Bible and she admits that it is very much against homosexuality...NO ifs, ands or buts about it. My cousin will also tell you the same thing in regards to the Bible, yet she has chosen to live that lifestyle.

Now, if my gay friend and gay cousin can read and understand that the Bible is very much against homosexuality, why can't you? Why do you try to remove very explicit commands? Why is it that two very strong, outspoken lesbians can accept and fully understand what the Bible teaches but you can't?

I beg to differ with you on your "born that way" statement. That's erroneous and based on outdated research. In fact, the more research they have done, the more unsure they are that it is a biological based issue. Partly due to environmental causes - most definitely. Research is now indicating that a person choosing that lifestyle may do so for different reasons and at different stages of their lives. To put them all in one eggbasket is ridiculous.

To be against a lifestyle does not make one "homophobic". It doesn't mean you can't care about or love them. It means you are strong enough to stand up for what Christ taught. I don't like the thought that my friend and cousin are sinning. I hate knowing that they refuse to follow the Bible. But they know it and they made their own choices. Love them, care about them, be kind to them - always. Want to hear about their private times - no! Nor do I want to hear about straight peoples private times. Ewwwwh.

By the way, I also love and care for friends that are living together before marriage and other sinful actions discussed in the Bible. Do I believe their actions and lifestyles are sinful? Yes! Do I want to hear about that part of their lives? No. Does that make me "shacking upaphobic"? No.

Why can't you people just get over the fact that if one is to follow the Bible, you follow all of it. And if we do, then we are going to be against "sinful" actions, whether you like it or not. We are not here to make YOU happy. We are here to please God.

you all are still missing the point. You dont have to like it, accept it,etc. I just dont see why you have objections to homosexual couples getting married.
You can spout all the bible you want, but marriage is still a CIVIL action.

Kent, you are talking to a brick wall with these people. In case you didn’t notice, the C of C denomination has made a living out of abusing, twisting, and misunderstanding scripture, and hypocrisy.

No one on this forum is FOR homosexuality. Everyone knows it’s a sin. It is just treated so obviously differently than other sins. Bill Crump, in yet another embarrassing post quoted I Cor. 6:9-10. In classic C of C style, picking out just what he needed to make his point. Try looking at that whole letter, or even just that whole chapter. If you want to see what I am talking about, read JC’s postings. You will not see a better example of misusing scripture and taking it out of context.

I dunno, me thinks it is pretty hard to take the story of Sodom & Gamorrah out of context unless one is wearing "rose colored (smoked) glasses".

Dear Anonymous:

"It is just treated so obviously differently than other sins. "

Would you agree that certain sins are more henious than others?

example:
Wouln't it be more grevious of a sin if one was a mass muderer, like Adolph Hitler than by contrast if one drove 10mph over the speed limit on the interstate?

JC +

Marriage is defined as a MALE and a FEMALE in the Bible and all known literature.

What you want is for the WORLD to affirm your different definition and for the system to SUPPORT your new definition. You want ME to help pay your bills. If permitted, you will HURT anyone who harkens back to the UNIVERSAL meaning of a marriage.

What if I, like most shepherds, tool a young ewe for wife while in the hills for the summer. Can I change the meanings of words to make you feel SAFE?

I have interviewed homosexuals seeking to attend the church and there was NO objection. However, what they insisted on was that we AFFIRM their lifestyle. Being involved with the electronic assembly girls in the Seattle world I knew that they would take over and probably exclude me for objecting. I see it as a POWER PLAY and you are using psychological violence against those who don't go "postmodern" and partner with God to work out some new definitions.

Whatever the outcome it cannot be deliberately USED to put down the universal interpretation of the Bible.

I do not care for the government to determine what i will accept as "normal" behavior in a marriage or civil union. Everyday, "partners" are gaining more and more benefits and rights just like married couples - without any type of authorized union. What about all those hetrosexual couples out there who don't have special rights because they live together? As much as people are jumping into and out of relationships today, how is our system supposed to handle all of that? Just the cost of paperwork will be overwhelming.

Let's be honest here and stop playing games. God didn't make men for men, or women for women. Without being outright crude, it's just a biological fact. Nothing comes from these unions naturally. Children are either adopted or inseminated - they can't be created naturally by these couples. What do they need a marriage/civil union for? There's no true biological merger here.

Why do I have to condone or accept their need to be unnatural? Without getting into disgusting details, homosexual sex isn't pretty or natural! Why am I having to pay taxes and higher insurance rates for their lifestyle? Why do I have to accept a lifestyle that has far worse breakup statistics than marriages do today? Why do I have to accept a lifestyle that has a much higher incident rate of serious diseases? Why do I have to accept their relationship if I believe it is immoral? What will you have me accepting next? Sodomites?

These are only a few of the many issues that have to be addressed when being asked to place a "behavior" on a protected list.

If God has placed this "behavior" on a abomination list and he's the one who created us, who am I to go against his decision and accept that which he hates? Doesn't he know more than I do? Doesn't he know the long-term outlook for such behavior?

There's so much more to this than being "closed-minded" or "judgementaL". It's not a simple matter of yes or no, right or wrong. This is something that effects are entire culture. If civil unions are accepted, then they are taught to our children in school. Will we have to pay for special "tolerance" classes along with health and government? Will our children become ever more confused with the Bible vs. the world? Will the acceptance by government filter into the churches? Will we start accepting this behavior as "normal".

And where do we draw the line and say "enough is enough"? When all of God's commandments no longer exist?

Amazed seems to think that if we examine 1 Cor. 6:9-10 in context with the verses around them, we’ll get a much clearer picture of how to regard the unrighteous. So we'll examine the whole chapter 6, as Amazed suggested. We won't need any more than that, anyway:

1 Cor. 6:1-11. Paul tells the Corinthian Christians not to settle their differences in pagan courts but among themselves. He stresses that the pagans are unrighteous, and because they are unrighteous, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God; that is, they will be condemned for their sins. Paul does not want Christians judged by unrighteous people in the courts. Then in verses 9-10, Paul presents a sample list of those whom God sees as unrighteous: fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminates, homosexuals, thieves, those who covet, drunkards, those who revile others, and extortioners. Paul says that some of the Corinthians had been guilty of those very sins, until they were converted, at which time they were then washed, sanctified, and justified by the blood of Christ. That meant they put away their unrighteous way of life and certainly did not continue as before.

Paul devotes the remainder of chapter 6 to condemning sexual immorality. He reminds the Corinthian Christians that, although they are free from the Law of Moses, they are not free to do exactly as they please by indulging themselves in sexual immorality. Whereas the Corinthians had formerly justified sexual immorality by believing that it took place outside their own physical bodies, Paul taught, “he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body” (verse 18). Furthermore, because the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, we are not our own, but have been bought with a price, the blood of Christ. Therefore, Christians are to glorify God in body AND spirit.

By looking at 1 Cor. 6:9-10 in context with ALL of 1 Cor. 6, we CLEARLY see how Christ through Paul views the unrighteous in general. But since "Amazed" alias "Brokeback Christian" particularly singled out homosexuals above the other unrighteous and suggested that the Church should accept them (see "2006 Acceptance," Jan. 26), 1 Cor. 6 CLEARLY shows us how Christ views homosexuals--in particular. We learn that Christ through Paul really comes down HARD on sexual immorality in general and warns Christians to refrain from it. And since homosexuality is a form of sexual immorality, then Christians must refrain from that as well.

Why would someone make a specific pitch for the Church to accept homosexuals? Perhaps a false statement made to pull our leg, as if an alias absolves them of falsehoods? Why stop with the homosexuals? Why not a campaign to get the Church to accept ALL unrighteous behavior as well? Regardless of Amazed/Brokeback Christian's motives for mentioning just homosexuals, there is NOTHING in 1 Cor. 6 which remotely suggests that known homosexuals should be accepted into the fellowship of the Church. They must NOT be accepted unless and until they repent of, renounce, and cease practicing that lifestyle forever. There is no such thing as a “homosexual Christian,” for the very term is not only an oxymoron, it’s an affront to Christ, who condemned homosexuality. Of course, “closet” homosexuals may claim to be Christians and fool the brethren around them with lip service, but they haven't a chance of fooling God.

I agree with Dr. Crump on ALMOST everything he says. You are making the same point I am. Yes, homosexuality IS a sin, it IS wrong, and you SHOULDN’T do it. My point is, homosexuality is treated differently by us than other sins, specifically the ones it is mentioned in context with in I Cor. 6. Should it be? JC asks if the holocaust is worse than speeding? Of course it is, but I hardly equate an immoral relationship with killing 6 million people.

You are saying that they must NOT be accepted until they repent forever. IF that’s your philosophy, do you hold drunkards, liars, and slanderers to the same standard? If so, you/your church is different than any I have ever been associated with.

Someone stated that they did not want their kids to see displays of homosexual affection. I don’t either. I also don’t want them to see displays of lying, slander, gossip, or Christian men smoking in the parking lot after church, but they do. And we don’t make them swear to never lie, gossip, or smoke before they enter our presence again. THAT’S what I mean by treating it differently.

We will accept liars, drunks, etc… because we identify with and struggle with those sins. We aren’t tempted by homosexuality, so we despise them. Put yourself in their place. Would you change your lifestyle for a Savior whose followers stared at you, called you names, and rejected you, OR a Savior whose followers loved you, accepted you, and taught you that it was wrong?

I think our disagreement/confusion is over the definition of “accept”. We have to accept them as Christ accepted us with our sin. That means to fellowship, teach, hold accountable, worship with, and work with. Someone else put up a posting saying their good friend was a homosexual. It’s O.K. to fellowship with them and have them as friends, as long as they don’t dare come near your church building? There’s just something suspiciously un-Christlike about that.

Jesus says, “Come to me, and I will help you overcome your sin.”
The church says, “Overcome your sin, and we will let you come to us.”

It’s not the healthy that need a doctor- think about it.

A few thousand give their lives defending freedom, probably 3 or 4 hundred thousand die from tobacco each year, and (who knows) tens of thousands are killed and more crippled from drunk driving and bad health.

Yet, AIDS could not exist without the homosexual community who FLAUNT the concept of safe sex and seem to enjoy having as many partners as possible without telling them that they are more deadly than a rattlesnake.

AIDS, and probably not flu, is the one thing which can and is BRINGING on the most massive epidemic known to history. They do a good job of hiding the fact that whole countries are dying because it FEELS better without protection and the FATHER outlaws it anyway. They are enemies of the world OF BIBLICAL PROPORTION. I know about group guilt but their propensity to RUB OFF on even their lovers gives ME the right not to expose my family where the DEMAND is to be affirmed and embraced.

How is it remotely possible to treat the PREDETERMINED RESULTS of homosexuality like a man with three families or is a hypocrite? The only hypocrites KILLING spirits are the theatrical performers in the "holy places." I would not shake their hand with TEN RUBBER GLOVES and never get within the reach of their SPITTLE baptizing the front rows.

No: all sins are NOT equal. A person who commits a sin with a high hand has no redemption. A person who infects whole families and innocent children is a mass murderer. So, just skip the "YOUR SIN is as bad as MY SIN."

Great points Dr Crump

Maybe those that would like to fellowship homosexuals would also like to fellowship a child molester in there home. Let them baby sit for them. And how about letting their wives spend an afternoon with a rapist. After all, were they not all born this way? Sounds ridiculous...meant to.

Wil

Wil, don't confuse ministry and forgiveness with trust. I would not let a rapist spend the afternoon with my wife, as I would not allow someone who embezzled money from their company be my accountant. I would love both of them, forgive them, minister to them, and accept their fellowship in worship, but it would take a while to build up trust.

God forgave Adam & Eve, but they weren't allowed near the tree again. We're not even letting them in the garden to begin with. I'm just glad God doesn't put the same yoke on me that the church does.

ok you people. Homosexuals are not to be equated with molesters and rapist. Thats why most people think right wing christian fundys are just plain whacked.

You do yourselves no favors with statements like that.
BTW, im dont think homosexuality is a sin, ok?

Dont bother quoting the verses at me.
I neither beleive the bible is from god nor inspired, so there.

And yes, i was a coc member for 20 years, so i heard it all

Kent:

Jonathan here. when you said: "Dont bother quoting the verses at me.
I neither beleive the bible is from god nor inspired, so there."

Did you mean God or god?

Apart from the question if the Bible is inspired; Do you believe in the God of Jacob, YHWY, I am who am?

You were a member of the church for a long time and that shows alot of patience; and with patience comes good things, please reconsider and in doing so , look to Christ on the cross!

"Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." - Revelation 14:12.

Amazed, thanks for bringing some sanity to this discussion.

I can't believe I'm doing this, but I have to say that I agree with most of what Mr. Sublett wrote on this thread. Unlike Kent, I do beleive that homosexuality is a sin and the Bible is inspired. Because of our differences regarding biblical authority, he and I cannot have common ground, but I will not villify him for this.

Mr. Sublett is incorrect in one major point. AIDS can exist very well without homosexuality. In the 3rd world it is primarily a heterosexual problem related to rampant promiscuity, and this has nothing to do with papal authority. Africa is in the worst shape.

I was involved in the medical profession for a few years and removed myself from it because I did not want to expose myself to risks involved with emergency treatment of people whose lifestyles were unfamiliar to me. As a husband and father of 3 I did not want to take that chance.

Amazed does make a good point in his posts about how we regard certain types of sin. Can we learn anything from Jesus about who he associated with and especially his treatment of the woman at well and the woman cought in adultery?

He reached out to all, but admonished them not to sin.

Rick

As I mentioned on another thread, I came to this forum to see if I might could find some reasonable answers to some questions I have. But then I clicked on one of the links above, and I found this statement:

“You must be knowledgeable enough to believe that the King James Bible (Authorized) is the word of God. You need to know from personal study that there are NO mistakes in the King James Bible.”

Is this really the position taken by members of this forum? I have no problem with those who prefer the KJV, but I would have a problem taking seriously anyone who espouses such an extreme and unfounded position as that noted in the above quote.

James W

James, Everyone here does not believe the KJV to have no mistakes. In fact, it is one of the more innacurate translations out there. It falls under the C of C mantra: "If we've done it that way since I was a child, it MUST BE the true way!"

I always thought it was funny that if you attend Sunday morning worship at a building that doesn't say CHURCH OF CHRIST on the sign, you are accused of not loving Christ, or being ashamed of him. Those same people accuse you of the same thing if you use a Bible NOT named after KING JAMES! Go figure.

It is such a mystery why the world thinks Christians are hypocrites???????

James W,

Not everybody on this thread believes in the infallibility of the KJV. James is not my king.

I believe in the infallibility of God's Word as it was written by inspired men, but I don't think that infallibility tranfers to the translators. That is why we must "study to show ourselves approvede." Besides, whatever it says you always have somebody who will say it doesn't mean that, no matter how clearly it is stated.

Learning the original languages helps, but even then we are seeing it through clooudy lenses. Having a Strong's Concordance is a crutch. It helps you when you need help, but in the end it is only a substitute for real study and scholarship.

Rick