The structure isn't really that hard to follow. If I tell a girl that I really want her to choose to have sex with me of her own free will and that if she doesn't I will shoot her in the head and it will be her fault for choosing not to have sex with me, are you saying that is rape?
How is this different from God saying He wants me to choose Him of my own free will and that if I don't He will cast me into a lake of fire to burn in eternal torment?
Considering Jesus and His twelve apostles, I don't think He'd be a humanistic secular. He wouldn't be one that thinks humans should do whatever wordly acts they want.
here is that verse:
nowhere in it do I see the word "government".
because we are born anew and made perfect
Himself
no. again you seem to have poor grasp on key terms here. Nationalism is when you take your identity from your Nation, from your ethno-cultural background, from an earth-bound corporate personhood.
You claim that there is abundance in heaven. Whatever there is in abundance must be produced somehow.why would there be means of production in Heaven?
um... no. again, you appear to have no idea what Fascism is, nor apparently what Christ or Christianity is about.
Jesus is definitely not a liberal. If Jesus were a liberal he would have handed out food stamps instead of loaves and fishes, and he would have handed out govt ID cards for govt run health care instead of healing the people with the power of God.
best strawman argument ever!!!!!!
:lamo
best strawman argument ever!!!!!!
:lamo
I think both political groups would be upset if Jesus were a liberal.
Most liberals don't hate Jesus. In fact, most liberals are Christians, or self-identify as such.
If that were true, I think liberal policy would be different. I assume you know this based on data?
If that were true, I think liberal policy would be different. I assume you know this based on data?
Jesus said marriage was a man and a woman. That makes Jesus a bigot, doesn't it?
I realize you might be attempting to be facetious here, Neal, but Jesus never said that.
Sure he did. I remember reading something like......"In the beginning, God made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall leave his home or whatever and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh, blah, blah".
I'll look for it.
Immediately afterward He said that that blessing was not meant for everyone to receive, but that those to whom it was given should recieve it rather than reject it.
Sure he did. I remember reading something like......"In the beginning, God made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall leave his home or whatever and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh, blah, blah".
I'll look for it.
Yep, it's right there in Matthew 19. Look it up.
2. "Jesus has just defined marriage as a male man to a female woman, and that's how the men to whom He was speaking understood it."
Your conclusion is not at all what Jesus actually said. The Jewish men to whom Jesus spoke did not define marriage as one man with one woman for life. When Jesus cites Genesis 2:24, by no means did Jesus or Jewish men understand Genesis 2:24 as prohibiting polygamy.
We know Complementarity (one man with one woman for life) is not God's ironclad rule for all marriages because scripture makes exceptions for other situations like (1) polygamy and (2) divorce because of fornication. The fact that there are clearly stated Biblical exceptions to Complementarity proves your absolutist view is wrong.
It also leaves open the strong probability that God intended the 5% of humans who are same sex attracted to be same sex partnered. This belief is based on 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 where the principle of partnership is stated.
"To avoid fornication, everyone (except those gifted with celibacy) should have an orientation compatible partner."
I believe scripture is clear that the Jewish men He addressed did not understand Him to be prohibiting polygamy. There is no way Jesus intended His words to convey the meaning you give them - that the only marriage acceptable to God is one man with one woman. Here's how we know that.
Once again, that's not what he actually says. This summarized what I was gonna say pretty well so I'll just stick with it:
Did Jesus define marriage as only between a man and a woman?
And it goes on to explain rather clearly why that's a false conclusion.
Nope. They asked him why did Moses give them permission to divorce. That is what was said immediately after that.
Matthew 19 NIV - Divorce - When Jesus had finished - Bible Gateway
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
I understand your impulse to use gay sites who claim to be Christian, but they are twisting the Word of God to satisfy their agenda.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?