Belief in god and the right to homosexuality?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

I made a typo. It should say, "It means the law, that tried to get man to love God and have faith but failed, tried to accomplish the same thing that faith accomplishes. It's not telling us what saves us. It's telling us that faith and the New Covenant fulfills what Law tried to fulfil, so that the goal of every one of the laws of old is fulfilled without the law by grace."

no prob, i don't get either one

Just reading your words here and seeing how you think it is possible to reconcile Paul's words with Christ's, or vice versa, shows we are simply at polar opposites when it comes to the basic and fundamental concept of whose word the entirety of the bible really is.

i know i keep bringing this up, but really you haven't acknowledged it, ever; doesn't 3 instances of Pauline legal doctrine culminating in Love unbeknownst to you tell you anything?

There you go back into the ditches again with the discussion. Looked good for a few hours... but then....


Why do you persist in asking me something I answered long ago... I see no problem in anything in the bible. You never answered this, but I ask it when you speak this way: Are you trying to say love in a person's heart excuses them from not knowing about the cross?

I am at a loss as to your point, because I never denied anything about love in any part of the bible. Of course it all culminates in love. But you say this sort of thing as though it is not love for people to have to come to God through the cross... since all I have been saying is people must come to God through the cross, and you speak as though that is legalism. Again s, you need to learn what legalism actually is. IT IS SALVATION BY WORKS.

We come through the same cross by which God showed the greatest love anyone could know. All I have been insisting upon is the cross is the absolute -- and I really mean absolute -- way to come to God. How does anything I said about Paul's words have to do with denying that love of God in the cross.

You refer to love and then say things like God knows the hearts and cultures that we cannot understand in entire religious movements that patently deny the cross so much as occurred. You say the cross is the greatest form of love, and then don't see God's demand for folks to come to him by that cross. And to further confuse matters, you talk to me like I deny anything pointing to love in the word, when in reality I deny that Paul's words contradict Christ's,and vice versa, and I propose that the entire volume of the bible is not legalistic just because it's written down, one is one beautiful message showing God's love works through the cross alone.

Help me out here--being the antichrist

If I could list all the things you imply I stated that I never stated at all, wow, what a thick book there'd be.

I distinctly said I did not call you antichrist. I said the BELIEF you repeated about the lack of inspiration of the Bible is antichrist.

Okay? Got it this time? (I won't hold my breath for an answer).

i get all these rules and such easily confused; but isn't that like the Golden Rule or something?
"Love your neighbor as you love yourself"

are you sure that is as universally understood in OP your way as you are saying? I mean do we need a poll or something...ya, i guess we need a poll or something...

Again, you are not clear in what you're trying to say. Please tell us what you are referring
to when you say "THAT is as universally understood..."

[mfblume]

Well?

Originally Posted by mfblume

I meant to say more after this paragraph:

Christ said he had many things to say to his disciples, but refused since they required the reception of the Spirit of truth to guide them into all truth. That Spirit came in Acts 2 and Paul received it later as did the initial 120. And Paul refers to that Spirit in defense of his inspiration of God when writing.

Since Christ said he had many more things, he implied they were more profound and above the level they could receive at the time He stated that. That means, when those men did receive the Spirit and wrote as a result, their words actually go beyond what Christ said. They wrote things that were on a higher level than the words of Christ while He was on earth, BUT THEY WERE STILL CHRIST'S WORDS.

If I believed they were not Christ's words written through the new testament writers, I would reject them as Muslims do. But Christ did say:

John 16:7-14 KJV Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. (8) And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: (9) Of sin, because they believe not on me; (10) Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; (11) Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. (12) I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. (13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (14) He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

And Paul's words as the other writers' words, fulfill that promise. They glorify Jesus and salvation by the cross.

So, the point is when you think I am reconciling Christ's words with Paul, it may appear that way to those who disbelieve Paul wrote under Christ's inspiration. But since the Spirit said deeper things through Paul than what Christ Himself was able to say due to the disciples lack of regeneration during the time of His earthly ministry, it is actually better to say, "Christ's words are being reconciled with what Christ later said through the apostles after their regeneration."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mfblume

34 is all I need! : ) you never asked what all i had. u asked where you said what i claimed you did. but I showed far more of your words than that. read how I repeatedly pointed out several phrases where your beliefs are false. .

do you stand by that statement I quoted?

Questions that never get answered.

[shazeep]

Again, you are not clear in what you're trying to say. Please tell us what you are referring
to when you say "THAT is as universally understood..."

"isn't that like the Golden Rule or something?
'Love your neighbor as you love yourself'

are you sure that is as universally understood in OP your way as you are saying?"

not sure how i could rephrase this for y'all, wadr. And for all i know your interpretation might hold sway here btw, as strange as that might seem to me. It's an opinion. You might even have some commentary backing you up, i haven't looked yet. I mostly wonder how honest a look a poll might give us, but it will at least be a clue, why labor under false pretenses.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Again, you are not clear in what you're trying to say. Please tell us what you are referring
to when you say "THAT is as universally understood..."

"isn't that like the Golden Rule or something?
'Love your neighbor as you love yourself'

are you sure that is as universally understood in OP your way as you are saying?"

not sure how i could rephrase this for y'all, wadr. And for all i know your interpretation might hold sway here btw, as strange as that might seem to me. It's an opinion. You might even have some commentary backing you up, i haven't looked yet. I mostly wonder how honest a look a poll might give us, but it will at least be a clue, why labor under false pretenses.

Okay I understand what you meant now. Your words were just unclear. Yes, the golden rule is the same thing as love your neighbour as yourself.

So...? Your point?

[shazeep]

You never answered this, but I ask it when you speak this way: Are you trying to say love in a person's heart excuses them from not knowing about the cross?

you're asking me to guess here, in a sense, but i would say agape prolly fulfills the Cross spiritually.

If I could list all the things you imply I stated that I never stated at all, wow, what a thick book there'd be.

i think you've listed them pretty well, exhaustively even. And please don't take these personally, that is the point of discussion; A) makes a statement, B) states any implications they derive from that statement, A) clarifies, etc.

How does anything I said about Paul's words have to do with denying that love of God in the cross.

you're gonna make me go dig up one of those 3 refs, huh.

I said the BELIEF you repeated about the lack of inspiration of the Bible is antichrist.

but i have admitted from the outset that Paul can be reconciled with Christ, Mike. Wouldn't antichrist be saying that he could not?

Questions that never get answered.

if you have a real question please put it in a succinct post; i'm not trying to avoid questions here; am i standing by "The quotes attributed to Christ must take precedence over anything you read from Paul?" is that seriously what you are still looking for an answer for, Mike? Since you have possibly read something different than i intended, i'll rephrase this to "When you read some Paul that seems to conflict with something you read from Christ, go with Christ until you can reconcile Paul to Him, and not the other way round." and as an addenda for lawyers i would add "Learn how to hide your surprise when Pauline passages are revealed to culminate in Love even as you are trying to use them as Law to condemn someone you do not know."

[mfblume]

Basically we were talking about Paul's words being Christ's, and how the word is equally God-inspired. And that falls no the backdrop of chats about what saves us. And it's the cross that saves. So, not sure where you were going with this. So, I repeated the thought of where love holds position in light of the cross being the way of salvation. This means loving each other as we would want love does not save us, though.

[shazeep]

Yes, the golden rule is the same thing as love your neighbour as yourself.

So...? Your point?

well admittedly i may not have one, if your interpretation is better understood. So let's see how the poll goes.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

you're asking me to guess here, in a sense, but i would say agape prolly fulfills the Cross spiritually.

So one need not know the cross or His death there and still be saved, since the agape love in one's heart is just as good as knowing about and applying the work of the cross to one's heart? If that's what you're saying, no.

There is no amount of agape love in a person to replace the work of the cross. Loving people is something WE DO or DON'T DO. And if we could love others as we would have others love us, then that is salvation based on something WE DO. And that is salvation by works.

As noble and lofty as it is to love others as we would be loved, that still cannot save us. Only God's love -- that transcends any love we could manifest, through the cross can save us. That deals with sin, whereas loving each other does not deal with sin.

you're gonna make me go dig up one of those 3 refs, huh.

Yes, because whatever you thought I meant is way out of the park, since I do not believe Paul's words deny the love of God in the cross. lol

but i have admitted from the outset that Paul can be reconciled with Christ, Mike. Wouldn't antichrist be saying that he could not?

But you said Paul's words were not on an equal level to Christ's words. That means Christ was not manifesting through Paul adequately enough to make you beleive they were on equal levels.

if you have a real question please put it in a succinct post; i'm not trying to avoid questions here; am i standing by "The quotes attributed to Christ must take precedence over anything you read from Paul?" is that seriously what you are still looking for an answer for, Mike?

Yes. You're the one who asked me where you said anything that felt was offkey, and when I posted that you hesitated to answer. Everything else I quoted related to that same conclusion you presented. But you never did say yes or no.

Since you have possibly read something different than i intended, i'll rephrase this to "When you read some Paul that seems to conflict with something you read from Christ, go with Christ until you can reconcile Paul to Him, and not the other way round." and as an addenda for lawyers i would add "Learn how to hide your surprise when Pauline passages are revealed to culminate in Love even as you are trying to use them as Law to condemn someone you do not know."

I never denied what Paul said culminates in love. So, speaking of reading what one never intended, I never intended anything vaguely similar to Paul's words not culminating in love.


So, now that you explained yourself in this last paragraph I see your point more clearly and I agree.

[mfblume]

No answer? in the meantime...

Originally Posted by shazeep

as an addenda for lawyers i would add "Learn how to hide your surprise when Pauline passages are revealed to culminate in Love even as you are trying to use them as Law to condemn someone you do not know."

Again, you distort the bible's reference to lawyers. You think standing on the written word, and not allowing for something the word does not deal with to excuse someone of sin and see them saved, is being a lawyer, when lawyers were ACTUALLY experts IN salvation by works. And LAW in that context, and no other, was legalism and salvation by works. It is not being a legalist or a lawyer or abiding by law to say nothing outside of what the word says can save us.

You really need to stop using the term, Law, lawyer, and legalism the way you do, since your use is totally out of context with how the bible uses those terms. Mark it down: law, lawyer and legalism ARE ONLY REFERRING TO SALVATION WORKS. And the utter irony of it all is that you lean toward salvation by works and yet you use the terms that refer to that as referring to everything but that!