Fidel Castro is dead!

[Smellin Coffee]

The 'doctrine of Christ ' can't be limited to the just the gospels.

Your flawed premise would allow all deviant behavior.

Thank you for confessing the teachings of Christ left for us are insufficient, the gospel He left irrelevant and the lack of revelation He left us by which to live, making the Great Commission entirely useless and the Sermon on the Mount a wishful guideline at best.

I wish other Christians were as honest about the One they claim to follow but in actuality, find to be simply another spiritual voice among many.

I sense contempt in your response.

My point is that all of scripture is His gospel and that you don't think it is.

There is contempt: contempt the teachings of Jesus have been hijacked and many sincere people through the centuries have been indoctrinated with the idea the Bible is a weapon with which to beat others with whom they disapprove. There's contempt with people trying to marginalize the teachings of Jesus so as to have other "spiritual" voices to choose from to support a relative view of life from the idea of purity to politics.

So you are correct; there is contempt in my response.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were just men. How can we trust their accounts? Did they record His words accurately?

We don't know if the accounts can be trusted. There is enough evidence for me to trust their reliability but how that evidence would hold up in say, a court of law, I don't know. But that is what faith is about, isn't it? I trust the Gospels and you trust the 66-book canon. Apart from the amount of material in which trust is placed, how is your trust different than mine?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The 'doctrine of Christ ' can't be limited to the just the gospels.

Your flawed premise would allow all deviant behavior.

Thank you for confessing the teachings of Christ left for us are insufficient, the gospel He left irrelevant and the lack of revelation He left us by which to live, making the Great Commission entirely useless and the Sermon on the Mount a wishful guideline at best.

I wish other Christians were as honest about the One they claim to follow but in actuality, find to be simply another spiritual voice among many.

I sense contempt in your response.

My point is that all of scripture is His gospel and that you don't think it is.

There is contempt: contempt the teachings of Jesus have been hijacked and many sincere people through the centuries have been indoctrinated with the idea the Bible is a weapon with which to beat others with whom they disapprove. There's contempt with people trying to marginalize the teachings of Jesus so as to have other "spiritual" voices to choose from to support a relative view of life from the idea of purity to politics.

So you are correct; there is contempt in my response.

Thankfully, after 2000+ years of saints, scholars, theologians and Bible students, God has revealed THE TRUTH to Smellin!
Hallelujah, we are saved from Orthodox Christianity and salvation by grace!*

* contains sarcasm, contempt and disdain....with a touch of pity.

"My sheep hear my voice and they know me."

It's interesting that choosing to follow Christ and His teachings elicits pity from a pastor...

 

[prophet]

...they openly covet a centralized government that puts group rights (broken down into race, gender, religion, etc.) over individual rights.  Smellin is no different.

Umm..."groups" are made up of "individuals".

Besides, if you are so much for "individual rights", why don't you believe gay marriage should be legal? Shouldn't my gay friends have an "individual right" to marry? Their personal choices shouldn't be yours or the government's business.

Oh, and let's not break down Muslims into groups either. We can start by protesting against Trump's alleged "registry" so Muslims can practice their freedom of religion in this country without governmental interference. But alas, I guess what should be freedom for the Christian should not be freedom for the Muslim.

In the end, you are ALL for grouping (i.e., "Hollywood elites and other leftists"), but only when it comes to groups that don't suit you.

Why should your "gay" friends get to demand that the rest of the individuals around them endorse their choice?



earnestly contend

Why should straight people demand they aren't worthy enough for marriage to whomever they wish?

Allowing them to marry for familial benefits is not the same as "endorsing their choice."

It is exactly "endorsing their choice", when all of their individual neighbors , who are part of a Representative Republic, and have clearly stated that they don't want the 6,000 year old definition of marriage changed to support deviancy, are forced to allow PUBLIC LICENSE for such.

Individuals in this country have a freedom of association.

Two fags that aren't related to each other, aren't "family" and don't deserve "familial" benefits.

They can associate with each other, as long as their deviancy is kept in private.

In fact, as far as I'm concerned, every time I hear the words they use to describe themselves, like "homosexual", where I am forced to think about their disgusting deviant acts , I order to know the meaning of the term,...I have just been assaulted.
It should be a crime to describe a deviant sexual act to someone who doesnt want to hear it.

Now, I'm never gonna get my way in that discussion, BUT I'M BEING MARGINALIZED BECAUSE I DONT LIKE DEVIANCY!!!!!

You damned hypocrite!!!

earnestly contend

 

[Smellin Coffee]

It is exactly "endorsing their choice", when all of their individual neighbors , who are part of a Representative Republic, and have clearly stated that they don't want the 6,000 year old definition of marriage changed to support deviancy, are forced to allow PUBLIC LICENSE for such.

Individuals in this country have a freedom of association.

Two fags that aren't related to each other, aren't "family" and don't deserve "familial" benefits.

They can associate with each other, as long as their deviancy is kept in private.

In fact, as far as I'm concerned, every time I hear the words they use to describe themselves, like "homosexual", where I am forced to think about their disgusting deviant acts , I order to know the meaning of the term,...I have just been assaulted.
It should be a crime to describe a deviant sexual act to someone who doesnt want to hear it.

Now, I'm never gonna get my way in that discussion, BUT I'M BEING MARGINALIZED BECAUSE I DONT LIKE DEVIANCY!!!!!

You damned hypocrite!!!

earnestly contend

Friend, I know your story and where you are coming from. I am truly sorry that it happened and that the adults around did nothing about it. You have every right to be angry about it. But adult consensual sex is not predatory and certainly not the personal relationship between same-sex couples, sexual activities aside. If a civil union instead of marriage granted them the same rights, I've got no problem with that instead.

What happened to you wasn't a result of homosexuality any more than an FBC girl who was victimized by Dave is a result of heterosexuality. Both instances are a result of predatory behavior. The child molester that was involved in my life was predatory to both males and females. He was a married man so perhaps because of his deviancy, we should disallow marriage altogether.

You are welcome to your opinion but I am stating it as how I see it. I believe it is wrong to discriminate against someone simply because I don't agree with every aspect of his or her behavior done in a consensual manner with another.

 

[prophet]

Why should straight people demand they aren't worthy enough for marriage to whomever they wish?

Allowing them to marry for familial benefits is not the same as "endorsing their choice."

It is exactly "endorsing their choice", when all of their individual neighbors , who are part of a Representative Republic, and have clearly stated that they don't want the 6,000 year old definition of marriage changed to support deviancy, are forced to allow PUBLIC LICENSE for such.

Individuals in this country have a freedom of association.

Two fags that aren't related to each other, aren't "family" and don't deserve "familial" benefits.

They can associate with each other, as long as their deviancy is kept in private.

In fact, as far as I'm concerned, every time I hear the words they use to describe themselves, like "homosexual", where I am forced to think about their disgusting deviant acts , I order to know the meaning of the term,...I have just been assaulted.
It should be a crime to describe a deviant sexual act to someone who doesnt want to hear it.

Now, I'm never gonna get my way in that discussion, BUT I'M BEING MARGINALIZED BECAUSE I DONT LIKE DEVIANCY!!!!!

You damned hypocrite!!!

earnestly contend

Friend, I know your story and where you are coming from. But adult consensual sex is not predatory and certainly not the personal relationship between same-sex couples, sexual activities aside. If a civil union instead of marriage granted them the same rights, I've got no problem with that instead.

What happened to you wasn't a result of homosexuality any more than an FBC girl who was victimized by Dave is a result of heterosexuality. Both instances are a result of predatory behavior. The child molester that was involved in my life was predatory to both males and females. He was a married man so perhaps because of his deviancy, we should disallow marriage altogether.

You are welcome to your opinion but I am stating it as how I see it. I believe it is wrong to discriminate against someone simply because I don't agree with every aspect of his or her behavior done in a consensual manner with another.
[/quote]
I have no idea how "what happened to either one of us" is relevant to my post.

You answered something in your head, and not what I said.

earnestly contend

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I have no idea how "what happened to either one of us" is relevant to my post.

You answered something in your head, and not what I said.

earnestly contend

Because it is the lens through which we see sometimes.

 

[prophet]

I have no idea how "what happened to either one of us" is relevant to my post.

You answered something in your head, and not what I said.

earnestly contend

Because it is the lens through which we see sometimes.

So, you're going to avoid ...

Should have known.

Carry on, your circular journey ,of 40 years in the wilderness, is surely exhausting.

earnestly contend

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I have no idea how "what happened to either one of us" is relevant to my post.

You answered something in your head, and not what I said.

earnestly contend

Because it is the lens through which we see sometimes.

So, you're going to avoid ...

Should have known.

Carry on, your circular journey ,of 40 years in the wilderness, is surely exhausting.

earnestly contend

I didn't avoid anything. I said I believe one's consensual sexual relationships should not prohibit their right to familial benefits when they are in a legal couple's relationship. You disagree. You claim homosexuality it predatory. I disagree.

Was there something I missed?

FYI, the majority of the South was for slavery at one point in history. Does that mean it was right or should the rights of slaves been allowed?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The 'doctrine of Christ ' can't be limited to the just the gospels.

Your flawed premise would allow all deviant behavior.

Thank you for confessing the teachings of Christ left for us are insufficient, the gospel He left irrelevant and the lack of revelation He left us by which to live, making the Great Commission entirely useless and the Sermon on the Mount a wishful guideline at best.

I wish other Christians were as honest about the One they claim to follow but in actuality, find to be simply another spiritual voice among many.

I sense contempt in your response.

My point is that all of scripture is His gospel and that you don't think it is.

There is contempt: contempt the teachings of Jesus have been hijacked and many sincere people through the centuries have been indoctrinated with the idea the Bible is a weapon with which to beat others with whom they disapprove. There's contempt with people trying to marginalize the teachings of Jesus so as to have other "spiritual" voices to choose from to support a relative view of life from the idea of purity to politics.

So you are correct; there is contempt in my response.

Thankfully, after 2000+ years of saints, scholars, theologians and Bible students, God has revealed THE TRUTH to Smellin!
Hallelujah, we are saved from Orthodox Christianity and salvation by grace!*

* contains sarcasm, contempt and disdain....with a touch of pity.

"My sheep hear my voice and they know me."

It's interesting that choosing to follow Christ and His teachings elicits pity from a pastor...

I do pity you at some level...you really have had a number done on you and you are left morally confused, biblically ignorant and IMO, bordering on apostasy.
Should I be sorry I feel sorry for you?

 

[Twisted]

It should be a crime to describe a deviant sexual act to someone who doesnt want to hear it.

I attended a school board meeting, where one of the topics was whether to approve a "gay club" on high school campuses.

When it was my turn to speak, I made sure to mention their sexual deviant behavior, specifically mentioning fisting and golden showers.

You should have heard them howl!  They didn't want to hear what queers do, they just wanted to approve it.  I have no doubt that if they could have made what I said a "crime" they would have happily had me arrested.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

For the past couple of years we have been working in Cuba with a Pastor and church training nationals and planting churches. The Pastor we work with has a church of about 3000 attendanve in eastern Cuba. We spoke with him yesterday and last night and he is concerned for himself and his family. Since Fidel's death, the government is asking the people to sign a pledge to affirm a commitment to Socialism....'socialism forever' seems to be the mantra of the moment. Any adult who is baptized in essence renounces their commitment to the party, so there has been tension off and on thru the years. They have decided NOT to sign the pledge and they fear severe repercussions...even imprisonment (or worse). Please pray for theses dear saints.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Should I be sorry I feel sorry for you?

Nah, I don't believe in using guilt to motivate anyone. Besides, my point isn't to motivate anyone to do anything other than make Jesus' teachings priority in their lives.

How that looks in your life just might be different than how it looks in mine.

 

[subllibrm]

<snip>
I didn't avoid anything. I said I believe one's consensual sexual relationships should not prohibit their right to familial benefits when they are in a legal couple's relationship. You disagree. You claim homosexuality it predatory. I disagree.

No.

He claimed it is deviant.

With predatory motivation or not, homosexual acts are by definition deviant.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

<snip>
I didn't avoid anything. I said I believe one's consensual sexual relationships should not prohibit their right to familial benefits when they are in a legal couple's relationship. You disagree. You claim homosexuality it predatory. I disagree.

No.

He claimed it is deviant.

With predatory motivation or not, homosexual acts are by definition deviant.

Right. And "deviant" is defined as being unusual from the norm. But that doesn't mean all "deviance" is wrong such as certain acts that don't include intercourse between two couples. For example, (not to get graphic here) because of my cancer, sex with my wife has to be done without the ability to use "normal" means which means it is deviant. But it is monogamous, precious intimacy with the one person I love most in the world.

So my point is that consensual sex between members of the same sex is not predatory, not illegal and with the relationships being deeper than simply having sex with another person and involving life-long commitments, and the fact same-sex marriage does not destroy any existing heterosexual marriages, there is no reason to legally discriminate against same-sex couples.

 

[Jim Jones]

The 'doctrine of Christ ' can't be limited to the just the gospels.

Your flawed premise would allow all deviant behavior.

Thank you for confessing the teachings of Christ left for us are insufficient, the gospel He left irrelevant and the lack of revelation He left us by which to live, making the Great Commission entirely useless and the Sermon on the Mount a wishful guideline at best.

I wish other Christians were as honest about the One they claim to follow but in actuality, find to be simply another spiritual voice among many.

I sense contempt in your response.

My point is that all of scripture is His gospel and that you don't think it is.

There is contempt: contempt the teachings of Jesus have been hijacked and many sincere people through the centuries have been indoctrinated with the idea the Bible is a weapon with which to beat others with whom they disapprove. There's contempt with people trying to marginalize the teachings of Jesus so as to have other "spiritual" voices to choose from to support a relative view of life from the idea of purity to politics.

So you are correct; there is contempt in my response.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were just men. How can we trust their accounts? Did they record His words accurately?

We don't know if the accounts can be trusted. There is enough evidence for me to trust their reliability but how that evidence would hold up in say, a court of law, I don't know. But that is what faith is about, isn't it? I trust the Gospels and you trust the 66-book canon. Apart from the amount of material in which trust is placed, how is your trust different than mine?

Trust them all or trust none.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The 'doctrine of Christ ' can't be limited to the just the gospels.

Your flawed premise would allow all deviant behavior.

Thank you for confessing the teachings of Christ left for us are insufficient, the gospel He left irrelevant and the lack of revelation He left us by which to live, making the Great Commission entirely useless and the Sermon on the Mount a wishful guideline at best.

I wish other Christians were as honest about the One they claim to follow but in actuality, find to be simply another spiritual voice among many.

I sense contempt in your response.

My point is that all of scripture is His gospel and that you don't think it is.

There is contempt: contempt the teachings of Jesus have been hijacked and many sincere people through the centuries have been indoctrinated with the idea the Bible is a weapon with which to beat others with whom they disapprove. There's contempt with people trying to marginalize the teachings of Jesus so as to have other "spiritual" voices to choose from to support a relative view of life from the idea of purity to politics.

So you are correct; there is contempt in my response.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were just men. How can we trust their accounts? Did they record His words accurately?

We don't know if the accounts can be trusted. There is enough evidence for me to trust their reliability but how that evidence would hold up in say, a court of law, I don't know. But that is what faith is about, isn't it? I trust the Gospels and you trust the 66-book canon. Apart from the amount of material in which trust is placed, how is your trust different than mine?

Trust them all or trust none.

So does the Catholic have the right to say the same thing to you considering your version doesn't have the Apocrypha, which was in the original KJV English translation?

In essence, your belief canon varies from historical belief in the same way my belief canon varies from the traditional, Evangelical (Protestant) canon.

The fact you tell me to "trust all or none" implies you realize there is contradiction between the red letters and the rest of the canon, giving more text in which the red letters can be massaged.

 

[Jim Jones]

Go red letter. You'll be dependent on men.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Go red letter. You'll be dependent on men.

So equating Paul's teachings as authoritative as the teachings of Jesus isn't being dependent on men?

 

[Jim Jones]

Go red letter. You'll be dependent on men.

So equating Paul's teachings as authoritative as the teachings of Jesus isn't being dependent on men?

It is.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Go red letter. You'll be dependent on men.

So equating Paul's teachings as authoritative as the teachings of Jesus isn't being dependent on men?

It is.

To trust anything that would be considered non-fiction in writing is to trust men, whether it be a blog, letter, book, etc. Granted, fiction, satire, etc. would be excluded but with the canon, there is an amount of trust the accounts are accurate, words haven't been manipulated over the centuries, translations are correct, etc. This would include red letters along with any canon, including Apocryphal.

So in this, we are in agreement.