Search results

I'm not sure why you're starting a thread you don't want to talk about. To me, the big thing is whether you repent and believe in Jesus Christ. This means that 1. you accept His death/burial/resurrection not just as fact but as the only means to your salvation, and 2. that He is Lord of your...

A kid’ll eat ivy, too. Why won’t you? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What if the answer is “yes”? What if the answer is “no”? How does the answer change your actions? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gates do 1 of 3 things hold people (or other creatures) in, hold them out, or let them pass. “Prevailing”, when talking about gates, can only refer to one or the other of the first two. Therefore, when the gates of Hades are said to not prevail against the church, it means they either can’t...

I'm glad to hear you say that!

That's a shame. My daughter married into a family that seems like they are all into social justice, but don't think we need to take the bible at face value. Her new husband is fairly solid, though still fairly immature.

Agreed!

Let’s go back to the verse you quoted. This divides our response into 2 categories. 1. Believers (“named a brother”) who are being immoral. 2. Unbelievers who are being immoral. Verse 10 explicitly excludes the unbelievers when it says not even to eat with “such a person” in v.11. Therefore...

So, then, did something change where it’s ok for the church to recognize as legitimate something that was at one time an abomination to God? If so, then “abomination” seems to lose its impact, if it’s negotiable. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with your assessment. But then how does that affect our public (not internal to the church) policy positions? If the church is in favor of recognizing civil unions in the public square (not judging those outside), but still rejects them for membership (judging those inside the church)...

That could be. My dad had voted Democrat all his life, but voted for Perot, because he saw Clinton as such a bad choice. And Bush certainly didn’t make a lot of conservative friends. If that’s the case, then it reverts back into a wash, and other 3rd party candidates then performed the same...

No problem! Thanks for the response! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I quoted the verse. Do you remember what the punishment was? And was it ok for God to tell the Israelites to “cut off” homosexuals? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's my post. Please tell me where I said that. I specifically asked if it should have been applied to the Israelites, and how do we know it's not the right thing to do now. I'm not talking about the Law of Moses, I'm talking about cutting off homosexuals from "their people", which I equated...

I don't think there are only two choices for president. But until there's a reasonable chance of someone besides the main two actually getting elected, there's little point in voting for them. I also remember the last time there was a viable 3rd party candidate. H Ross Perot siphoned votes from...

Yes, and how does that affect my question?

Interesting that he would use the term "thrown out". It's eerily close to "cut off from among their people" used in the Levitical law: [Lev 18:29 KJV] For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people. My question...

It might be morally faulty. It's definitely not electorally faulty.

So you’re not voting for Trump, because He offends you, you’re not voting for Biden because he’s a duopoly guy, and you’re not voting for someone who will siphon votes from Biden. The only remaining option is to vote for someone who siphons from Trump. Or not to vote. Which one is it?

It’s only the last chance if he wins. If he loses, he can run again. So the win-win for you is voting for someone who takes away votes from Biden, in hopes that Trump wins this time, so you won’t have to face the “never” situation later. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk