My wife has a book called "Cult Classic Movies". One of the things we do together when we have time, is go through the list of movies in the index in the back, and make it a point to watch all of them. Usually we do it in alphabetical order, and sometimes one of us picks one at random.
However, a couple of the movies we watched that we had "TiVo'ed" were playing on the LOGO channel.
It never occured to me that that channel is a homosexual channel, but it all makes sense now.
Of all the movies we saw that happened to be on that channel, they were:
- ABBA - The Movie - Some movie in Dutch from Holland (name escapes me) about a lesbian woman, and her "life" basically. - Some other movie (forget the name) about some dude (Brendan Fraiser) who hangs out with the guy who played Count Dracula in all the old original movies, and they did gay stuff together. - Some movie (also forget the name) about a woman who protests something... (fell asleep during that one), played by the red headed girl from Sex in the City
The God of the bible said nothing. There is no god to quote. There is only what some men claim a non-existent god said.
Phranc, you know I'm friends with you and I highly respect you, so I'm not going to get into a contest with you that serves no purpose. But I will ask you to look at the way I worded it.
I intentionally put "the God of the bible". Even if I accede to your point that only what some men claim a non-existent god said, it is these men that you believe wrote the bible. And what these men wrote, they claimed they were writing what (to you the non-existent) the God of the bible said.
So what you wrote did nothing to refute what I said, and is actually wrong.
The point isn't whether the God of the bible said something. That is established by the writers of the Bible. I mean, it is in there. As put in by the writers.
Whether the men were expressing the exact sentiments of a real, genuine God as they portrayed Him in the Bible, or whether it is a non-existent god that they only claimed he said, yeah, that is an issue people can discuss.
But out of respect for you, Phranc, that wouldn't be a discussion I would have with you unless you specifically asked me to have. Because I know from experience where you stand and how you feel, and I'm your friend, and I'm not going to intentionally try to talk about something that I know you wouldn't want to talk about and are sick of getting brought up.
Hope you'll take that all in the spirit I mean it.
Phranc, you know I'm friends with you and I highly respect you, so I'm not going to get into a contest with you that serves no purpose. But I will ask you to look at the way I worded it.
I intentionally put "the God of the bible". Even if I accede to your point that only what some men claim a non-existent god said, it is these men that you believe wrote the bible. And what these men wrote, they claimed they were writing what (to you the non-existent) the God of the bible said.
So what you wrote did nothing to refute what I said, and is actually wrong.
The point isn't whether the God of the bible said something. That is established by the writers of the Bible. I mean, it is in there. As put in by the writers.
Whether the men were expressing the exact sentiments of a real, genuine God as they portrayed Him in the Bible, or whether it is a non-existent god that they only claimed he said, yeah, that is an issue people can discuss.
But out of respect for you, Phranc, that wouldn't be a discussion I would have with you unless you specifically asked me to have. Because I know from experience where you stand and how you feel, and I'm your friend, and I'm not going to intentionally try to talk about something that I know you wouldn't want to talk about and are sick of getting brought up.
Hope you'll take that all in the spirit I mean it.
So you admit that the god of the bible is fictional? Thats the only way I would be wrong. And if you do admit that the god of the bible is fictional how can you use it to justify anything?
Your born straight. You choose to be gay.Check any poll conducted by gay people. Almost 90% of all homosexuals have had intercourse with someone of the opposite sex, but CHOSE to have relations with same sex. So to me it is a CHOICE. My Book ? I guess your refering to the Bible? Typical answer for someone who doesnt believe or want to practice Christianity. But its ok, It's your CHOICE.
sorry but like a lot of rightwing dogma that just is not true I think gays are born not made that way by choice I do believe in free will but some things are beyond control or choice
BTW pork is banned in the bible but I see no christians burning down pig farms or bar-b-que places
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
On a societal level, I AM against ANY attempts to redefine long standing words with precise definitions. Period.
Even Websters updates the dictionary, as meanings of words change and language evolves. They aren't written in stone. I guess you think a "gay" person is someone who is happy all the time. That definiton has been changed over the years.
quote
Marriage is a man and a woman. It is a definition. What they are doing may be a close copy. It isn't a marriage.
Besides not being able to have children, how is a gay marriage different? What if they adopt children, does that still make it different?
quote
Regarding is the love unnatural, the God of the Bible says it is
Can you tell me exactly where this quote of God is in the Bible? Humans are classified as animals, unless you think we are some sort of vegetable or mineral.
quote
Regarding shouldn't matter what people do behind closed doors. Agreed. I don't care. But they (and my wife and I, too) don't just live behind closed doors. We live in a society.
And do you do some things behind close doors that you consider private? I bet you do. There are things all of us do that are no one elses concern. What does that have to do with living in society?
quote
Regarding finding homosexuality disgusting, I personally would.
quote
I have several homosexual friends. They know how I feel. Yet they love me and I love them. We always hug when we see each other. Just like many of my heterosexual friends, male and female, do.
Is it me or aren't those statements a bit hypocritical?
quote
Regarding marriage being a church thing, I'm not hung up on that. But regarding whether in a church or a civil ceremony, a marriage is a man and a woman. It is the definition of the word.
marriage- 7 dictionary results File for Divorce Online Save Thousands on Legal Fees. • Unlimited Customer Support. www.LegalZoom.com Spiegel & Utrera PA Divorce Claims No Obligations. We Can Help You! www.AmeriLawyer.com Men's Divorce Law Firm Ocala Area Divorce and Family Law Services For Men Only www.MensDivorceLaw.com mar⋅riage  /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mar-ij] Show IPA –noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. 4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage. 5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. 6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger. 7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture. 8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage. 9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces. 10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.
I guess you are just plain "old fashioned".
quote
On a societal level, I AM against ANY attempts to redefine long standing words with precise definitions. Period.
If you are so hung up on the use of a word you need to get over it. Many other cultures and religions have used the word "marriage" for millenia. Their definiton may not be the same as your definiton of it. I guess they are all wrong too. The word "marriage" is not exclusive to the Catholic church or it's members. If you think this is so your are wrong. Would you be satisfied if gay couple use any of these other words instead? Matrimony, wedding, nuptials. These are terms for the ceremony uniting couples in wedlock, or would these still not satisfy you?
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-29-2009).]
I could care less. Their wishes (to be married) have no impact on my happiness.
I almost never see eye to eye (agree) with Neptune on many issues but I would side with him on this one. If they want marriage, let them (Gays) have it.
So you admit that the god of the bible is fictional? Thats the only way I would be wrong. And if you do admit that the god of the bible is fictional how can you use it to justify anything?
I'm going to try again, Phranc, but you just need to know I'm not trying to win any debate or to prove any point.
Certain men wrote or authored the bible. The men wrote about a certain God with certain characteristics.
I decided to call the God as these men portrayed Him in the bible as "the God of the bible". I did that to differentiate what other people call gods because many people have their own opinion. I then stated specifically that this, as I called it, "the God of the bible" (as portrayed by these men) says that homosexuality is unnatural and is wrong.
What is said that you said was wrong, or incorrect, was when you said, "The God of the bible said nothing."
Well, Phranc. I'm not trying to nitpick at all. Nor am I trying to make you look bad. Maybe it would have been more acceptables to say you misinterpreted what I said.
But "The God of the bible" DOES say lots of things. In the bible. Whether you view him as a fictional character or the genuine God wasn't my point.
Just as in other books, so and so said. Pick someone. Tom Sawyer said... Well, no, Mark Twain said it. Well, of course. But that is the context I was speaking in.
I'm just trying to help you understand what I was saying.
This is NOT some contest I'm trying to win so again, I'm not discussing it in that manner. I'm just trying to clarify.
I'm going to try again, Phranc, but you just need to know I'm not trying to win any debate or to prove any point.
Certain men wrote or authored the bible. The men wrote about a certain God with certain characteristics.
I decided to call the God as these men portrayed Him in the bible as "the God of the bible". I did that to differentiate what other people call gods because many people have their own opinion. I then stated specifically that this, as I called it, "the God of the bible" (as portrayed by these men) says that homosexuality is unnatural and is wrong.
What is said that you said was wrong, or incorrect, was when you said, "The God of the bible said nothing."
Well, Phranc. I'm not trying to nitpick at all. Nor am I trying to make you look bad. Maybe it would have been more acceptables to say you misinterpreted what I said.
But "The God of the bible" DOES say lots of things. In the bible. Whether you view him as a fictional character or the genuine God wasn't my point.
Just as in other books, so and so said. Pick someone. Tom Sawyer said... Well, no, Mark Twain said it. Well, of course. But that is the context I was speaking in.
I'm just trying to help you understand what I was saying.
This is NOT some contest I'm trying to win so again, I'm not discussing it in that manner. I'm just trying to clarify.
Clarify this for me. Is the god in the bible real or not? Why would you use the god in the bible as a justification for gay love to be unnatural? Can you quote exactly where god said this?
I understand what you are saying. You saying that you value the god in the bible to dictate what is and isn't unnatural for despite what actual nature tells you. Thats fine but you better be willing to accept confrontation when you use such statements . You obviously aren't. You really can't defend your position. But when you ride on faith you don't have to. And I'm not wrong when I say the god in the bible said nothing.
If you are so hung up on the use of a word you need to get over it. Many other cultures and religions have used the word "marriage" for millenia. Their definiton may not be the same as your definiton of it. I guess they are all wrong too. The word "marriage" is not exclusive to the Catholic church or it's members. If you think this is so your are wrong. Would you be satisfied if gay couple use any of these other words instead? Matrimony, wedding, nuptials. These are terms for the ceremony uniting couples in wedlock, or would these still not satisfy you?
Well, I'll admit I am "old fashioned" in SOME ways. But that really isn't the issue in this case.
Just like some people don't accept the Bible as being the authority for defining things, I don't necessarily accept Webster's definitions as the authority for defining things. I'm not upset with Webster. They are trying to reflect what possible meanings people put on a certain word.
Look. I'm being up front with people. I'm using the BIBLE definition of marriage. Not the catholic definition. I'm not catholic. I have never really checked to see precisely how they define it. Society for THOUSANDS of years have used the man-and-woman definition, regardless of belief in the bible, or being religious, etc.
I am against homosexuals using ANY terms related to marriage to define their relationship. Matrimony. Wedding. Nuptials. Stop trying to equate your relationship with marriage. They are DIFFERENT.
In a biblical marriage, there are DEFINED roles that go along with the marriage. It isn't a superior/inferior thing. It is an assignment of certain roles in the marriage to certain members of it. A lot of heterosexuals reject those roles. Whatever. That's their business. But there ARE defined roles. Some assigned to the man. Some assigned to the woman. That doesn't apply to couples who are of the same sex. It is a different relationship.
I NEVER SAID it couldn't be a loving relationship. I never said it couldn't be a devoted, committed relationship. I never said it couldn't be very valuable and meaningful to them. It just isn't a marriage.
Regarding the exact quote in the Bible, here it is:
Romans 1:26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Regarding being hypocritical, NOT AT ALL. I find the thought of me having sex with another man personally as disgusting. I don't find the thought of me having sex with another woman personally disgusting. But I DO find it wrong since I am married and part of the commitment that goes with that is to exclusively reserve sexual activity solely to my wife.
But I'm not having SEX with my homosexual friends. I can deliver a hug in a certain way with NO sexual connotation communicated or delivered. I can deliver kisses that way. Same with my heterosexual friends, male or female. I have to be careful so I don't accidentally communicate the wrong thing.
But I am telling you people, on an individual person and couple basis, I am as kind and helpful to homosexual people as anyone else. But if you are asking me if I am for them laying claim to the words surrounding marriage, my answer is NO. If you ask me if I will fight for equal civil rights for them, my answer is YES. If you ask me is what they are doing a right and ok alternative life, I will say NO. Do I feel obligated to interfere with them or to initiate criticism of them? NO.
I agree with htexans1 in the sense that this is not a big deal to me, and doesn't have big impact on my happiness.
I'm just giving all this in the context of my opinion. I'm not calling my congressmen on this one. I'm not marching. I'm not attending rallies. I AM saying that words have meanings. Meanings are important. Just because one group wants to change a definition doesn't mean we all have to roll over and accept it when we feel there are signficant distinctions that don't merit the change in the word's definition.
(forgot to mention to a previous post. I find cigarette smoking disgusting as well. Yet I TOTALLY support smoker's rights, and have fought against the U.S. government taking away business owner's rights to decide what to do with their establishments, and have fought against taxing these people to death. That's not hypocritical, either.)
Also with you, avengador, I'm just discussing this. I'm not arguing with you, or trying to prove some point. I'm just trying to clarify to you where I am really coming from.
Clarify this for me. Is the god in the bible real or not? Why would you use the god in the bible as a justification for gay love to be unnatural? Can you quote exactly where god said this?
I understand what you are saying. You saying that you value the god in the bible to dictate what is and isn't unnatural for despite what actual nature tells you. Thats fine but you better be willing to accept confrontation when you use such statements . You obviously aren't. You really can't defend your position. But when you ride on faith you don't have to. And I'm not wrong when I say the god in the bible said nothing.
Phranc,
I'll answer just because you asked, not because I'm trying to convince you.
Is the God in the bible real? A. yes
Can you quote exactly where god said this? A. Romans 1:26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
You saying that you value the god in the bible to dictate what is and isn't unnatural for despite what actual nature tells you. A. Elsewhere in the bible it says that God created everything, so He would logically get to dictate what is natural as creator of it. Regarding actual observation of nature, I'm not sure to what you are referring but I'm not asking you to say what that is.
Thats fine but you better be willing to accept confrontation when you use such statements . You obviously aren't. You really can't defend your position.
A. Phranc, it should be obvious to you or any objective observer that I am more than willing to accept confrontation. Why would you even say that? I think it is clear from this thread that I have accepted the confrontation and patiently tried to defend the position and explain the basis from which I'm defending it.
I never said you should accept it as true. But just because you don't, it doesn't mean I didn't defend my position or answer. I never said you shouldn't confront or challenge it. I never denigrated you for not thinking about it or seeing it like I do. I never called you a name nor insulted you. I never belittled your viewpoint.
Honest question because I believe that they will get judged in more ways than man is capable. If I didn't then I would be waiting out side of the court house. What does someone with no faith in a higher being believe in that keeps them from acting out as an animal and killing these scum bags?
Stop trying to equate your relationship with marriage.
What relationship would that be? FYI my wife and myself are Roman Catholic and neither of us feel that gays getting married is something that is wrong, as long as it isn't in the church. Our church does not recognize this union, won't perform this union, we won't ask them to do so, and that is fine with us. I also know that this sounds hypocritical, but we feel a state sanctioned wedding would be alright, if they get all the same rights my wife and I enjoy as a couple. This is happening now in several states and more will soon follow. We also don't see ourselves having sex with a partner of the same sex, one fo the opposite sex, animals, nor anyone, except each other. We made this bow to each other when we got married. That is why we don't care, need to care, or even have to think about what everyone else chooses to do. That is their choice and freedom, not ours. We have made our choice and live with it. Fortunately it has been a good one for both of us. Let's face the facts. You don't want to recognize that gays can marry in several states now and you wish it was none. Gays that get married in those states have the same rights straight couples get when they marry, not some watered down version a civil union would give them. It just isn't the same. Again I ask, who gets hurt from this? Eventually all states will recognize and allow gay weddings. Is it really something that terrible? Even if my church says it is a sin, it also says that we have to forgive them for their sins. I can live with that. I choose not to judge, because only God has the last word and judgement. Judge not less ye be judged.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-29-2009).]
There is no help for you unless God steps in and shows you the way. You may chose to ignore it, or maybe already have. That is the beauty of humanity. Free will. God's forgiveness is eternal, and it's FREE. The best thing you could ever receive cost absolutely nothing. It has already been paid in full.
Let's face the facts. You don't want to recognize that gays can marry in several states now and you wish it was none. Gays that get married in those states have the same rights straight couples get when they marry, not some watered down version a civil union would give them. It just isn't the same. Again I ask, who gets hurt from this? Eventually all states will recognize and allow gay weddings. Is it really something that terrible? Even if my church says it is a sin, it also says that we have to forgive them for their sins. I can live with that. I choose not to judge, because only God has the last word and judgement. Judge not less ye be judged.
When I said "your" relationship, I wasn't referring to you and your wife.
Regarding facing facts, yeah, I never denied it. I didn't want ANY states to recognize gay MARRIAGE, since it is non-sensical according to the definition and it can't exist. If a civil union doesn't give them the same civil rights, those states certainly could have legislated to correct that. They didn't have to create a law for "gay marriage" to solve that.
Your church may say you have to forgive them for their sins, but your church's bible doesn't. It says homosexuals have a responsibility to repent, which means to agree with God that something is wrong, and then THEY have to take the responsibility to ask God, not the church, to forgive them. Yeah, just like I have to do my mine.
Regarding judging them, there are two senses of the word judge.
I am judging in the sense of DISCERNING whether what they are doing is ok with the God of the bible. The answer is no. Not because anyone asked me. Not because of what any church says. Because I can read what it plainly says.
I do not judge them in the sense of pronouncing condemnation on them. That isn't my job. It is my job to be kind and neighborly and helpful and friendly. So I and my church don't have to forgive them. Because they don't offend ME.
Isn't it about a "spouse" being allowed to rape the "husband's" assets?
Yes. its childish I know, but sometimes I just can't help myself.
quote
Originally posted by CoryFiero:
Who gets hurt if I marry my dog? Who gets hurt if I marry my sister? Who gets hurt if I marry six women? Who gets hurt if I marry 2 men and 4 women? Who gets hurt if I marry a lizard?
You would probably hurt the dog, probably hurt your sister, 6 women would definitely hurt you, 2 men, 4 women.....you still get hurt. and finally. Leave me out of it.
Honest question because I believe that they will get judged in more ways than man is capable. If I didn't then I would be waiting out side of the court house. What does someone with no faith in a higher being believe in that keeps them from acting out as an animal and killing these scum bags?
Let's keep in mind that, within my lifetime, we would have said the same thing about homosexuality. Universally. Even psychological texts called homosexuality a deviant behavior. Now, with decades of "education" in the media, the schools and elsewhere, what less than 2% of the population does defines them as a person.
It is conceivable, then, that the subject of the referenced thread could become "normal" in another few decades, and those people, whether in the US or Canada, are protected against speech calling them "scum bags." That's what NAMBLA is all about. Men marrying young boys. If the men love the young boys, and the young boys love the men, who does it hurt?
Sounds disgusting? Sure does to me; I have two boys (and two girls, too). But is it inconceivable that the legal precedents set by Massachusetts, Vermont, et al could be a stepping stone to this? I hope not, but I believe so.
sorry but like a lot of rightwing dogma that just is not true I think gays are born not made that way by choice I do believe in free will but some things are beyond control or choice
BTW pork is banned in the bible but I see no christians burning down pig farms or bar-b-que place
Nope, We don't need to.But this isnt about pigs and and Bar-b-que either.
[This message has been edited by Slayre (edited 05-29-2009).]
Honest question because I believe that they will get judged in more ways than man is capable. If I didn't then I would be waiting out side of the court house. What does someone with no faith in a higher being believe in that keeps them from acting out as an animal and killing these scum bags?
Well its called being civilized. There is no need for religion to be a civilized person. It is also possible to have morals and ethics with out imaginary friends.
There is no help for you unless God steps in and shows you the way. You may chose to ignore it, or maybe already have. That is the beauty of humanity. Free will. God's forgiveness is eternal, and it's FREE. The best thing you could ever receive cost absolutely nothing. It has already been paid in full.
Help for what? There is no god to step in and show me anything. Your imaginary friend can't forgive me because it isn't real.
I'll answer just because you asked, not because I'm trying to convince you.
Is the God in the bible real? A. yes
Can you quote exactly where god said this? A. Romans 1:26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
You saying that you value the god in the bible to dictate what is and isn't unnatural for despite what actual nature tells you. A. Elsewhere in the bible it says that God created everything, so He would logically get to dictate what is natural as creator of it. Regarding actual observation of nature, I'm not sure to what you are referring but I'm not asking you to say what that is.
Thats fine but you better be willing to accept confrontation when you use such statements . You obviously aren't. You really can't defend your position.
A. Phranc, it should be obvious to you or any objective observer that I am more than willing to accept confrontation. Why would you even say that? I think it is clear from this thread that I have accepted the confrontation and patiently tried to defend the position and explain the basis from which I'm defending it.
I never said you should accept it as true. But just because you don't, it doesn't mean I didn't defend my position or answer. I never said you shouldn't confront or challenge it. I never denigrated you for not thinking about it or seeing it like I do. I never called you a name nor insulted you. I never belittled your viewpoint.
Well its called being civilized. There is no need for religion to be a civilized person. It is also possible to have morals and ethics with out imaginary friends.
The problem with human morality (absent a diety) is that such morality is flexible. It is subject to change based on how the current society feels.
It is conceivable, then, that the subject of the referenced thread could become "normal" in another few decades, and those people, whether in the US or Canada, are protected against speech calling them "scum bags." That's what NAMBLA is all about. Men marrying young boys. If the men love the young boys, and the young boys love the men, who does it hurt?
Sounds disgusting? Sure does to me; I have two boys (and two girls, too). But is it inconceivable that the legal precedents set by Massachusetts, Vermont, et al could be a stepping stone to this? I hope not, but I believe so.
I don't see this happening as we have laws to protect minors. By law, minors are incapable of making a decision like this and it is illegal for adults to engage in this activity with minors. It's statutory rape.
John 8 1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Note: The Old Testament listed adultery as a capital crime (Lev. 20:10). It merits no punishment in today's society. As a side note, here is a link with some interesting observations about this passage.
Help for what? There is no god to step in and show me anything. Your imaginary friend can't forgive me because it isn't real.
Satan has a stranglehold on you brother. Has anyone ever told you how to accept Jesus and receive eternal life? I won't preach to you. I'm not the best Christian in the world, but I hate to see someone in the dark as far as you are.
Home > Salvation according to the Bible --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe upon Jesus Believing upon Jesus (the right Jesus) is a necessity to being saved: John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
We must repent We must turn from our wicked ways: Luke 5:32, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." and also Luke 13:3, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
Be born again We must be born again: John 3:3, "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
If you continue reading in John chapter 3 verses 14 through 21 tells you how you can become born again. Verse 16 pretty much tells you what you need to do: John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Beware of the 'wrong Jesus' Warning against 'another Jesus': 2 Corinthians 11:4, "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."
The true Jesus would be born of a virgin: Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Also see Matthew 1:23) Mormonism for example, believes that the Father (which in their belief is Adam who became a god) came down physically and mated with his 'spirit daughter' Mary and out came Jesus' body. Their Jesus resulted from INCEST and NOT from a virgin birth! They also believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers! That is a mockery to the true Jesus!
Jesus (the right Jesus) is the ONLY way to heaven: John 10:1, 9, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber... I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Beware of religions that appear to be good Warning about Satan's ministers appearing to be righteous: 2 Corinthians 11:14, 15, "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."
Beware of angels giving revelations contrary to God's Word: Another thing I'd like to point out is that the Mormon's "revelation" came from an angel (a fallen angel by the name of Moroni), and in Galatians 1:8 it directly warns us against an angel giving us a revelation that doesn't line up with God's Word, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
In the end days, there will be many who fall into deceiving religions: 1 Timothy 4:1, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." If you look up seducing in the Greek for that verse, it means deceiving. Deceiving means to appear to be true, yet it's false, or to give a false impression. This verse is talking about religions that appear to be right, but don't lead a person down the path to heaven. For example, Mormonism is the kind of religion they are talking about here, because it 'seems right' and yet it is so far off the track. I think it's pretty clear that Satanism won't lead a person to heaven, but yet it doesn't look like a godly religion either. It's pretty clear that they aren't trying to 'appear' godly. Satan works in different ways in different religions. The goal of Satanism isn't to try to deceive Christians to convert, but to directly bring Satan glory (demon worship, marrying Satan, etc.). Whereas the goal of Mormonism is to appeal to lukewarm Christians and people who are looking for a "nice" religion.
Simply believing in Jesus isn't enough Just acknowledging Jesus isn't enough: Shortly after John 3:16, it tells us in verse 21, "But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." Also, James 2:19-26 says, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." Some people claim that they are Christian, so that they feel they are going to heaven, but if they don't turn from their wicked lifestyle, then they aren't living up to their professed faith.
Salvation cannot be earned On the other hand, we cannot earn our salvation: Eph 2:8-9, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." But notice that in verse 10 it says, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." I believe it's telling us that we can't be 'saved' by our works, but we are suppose to live a Godly life as a Christian. We aren't to claim we are Christians, and then go out and continue to live in the world.
Obey God's commandments We must obey God's commandments: Matthew 7:21-23, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
What are God's commandments? Matthew 22:37-40, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." There are a lot of laws in the OT against things such as incest, adultery, worshipping idols, etc., but they all fall into these two categories. If a person loved God, they wouldn't be worshipping idols, misusing their bodies or minds for purposes that don't glorify God, and if a person loved his neighbor, he or she wouldn't steal, murder, or mistreat others. Jesus says that we prove our love for Him when we keep His commandments (John 14:15, 23, 24).
If we don't love the brethren, we abide in spiritual death: 1 John 3:14, "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." Mark 11:26 tells us that if we don't have mercy and forgive one another, it blocks us off from God forgiving us.
The unrighteous will not enter the kingdom of God: 1 Corinthians 6:9, "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." Of course, a person can come from that kind of a lifestyle, and be redeemed (that's why Jesus came to earth!), but that doesn't mean they can continue in their sins.
Sanctification (becoming more like Jesus) Becoming more Christ-like is a growing process: Have you noticed how nobody becomes perfect in all their ways the moment they accept Christ? I believe there is a growing process we go through called sanctification. 1 Thessalonians 5:23, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Timothy 2:22, "Flee also youthful lusts: but follow (pursue) righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart."
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-30-2009).]
Satan has a stranglehold on you brother. Has anyone ever told you how to accept Jesus and receive eternal life? I won't preach to you. I'm not the best Christian in the world, but I hate to see someone in the dark as far as you are.
Satan? You mean the imaginary enemy of your imaginary friend. Why would I accept Jesus? He is just a dead man. Why would I want eternal life? I don't need false promises to make me feel special and give me a false hope that there is something after you die.
Topic Closed
(Straight that is)
