DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Religious Freedom.

Do you encourage it, allow it, or allow it and denigrate it in front of your daughter? Think of it like school. Do you (will you - I think your daughters are not of school age yet?) encourage them with their homework? Show them the importance of education? Or will you expect them to do homework by themselves? Or will you spout off about how crappy the teachers must be because they don't get stuff done in school?

It makes a difference. In school stuff. Or in sports.


40 doesn't speak for all Christians. Have I preached to you? You ever want to talk, about religion, or car sales, or life, you have my number. You can disagree with me from top to bottom. On car sales, I can offer advice and you may say "that's not what I'm being told at work", and it won't bug me. You can ask me about religion and I won't preach and probably won't be able to answer many/most of your questions. But we could have a discussion.

You come from your background, I come from mine. Doesn't mean we're enemies. On anything.



Friendly "parental" advice. I have a son your age. Do you really want to post that?

"But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Those who wear soft clothing are in kings' palaces!

And us real pinko-commies don't even get any love

I'm having a bit of trouble phrasing what I want to say correctly, so I'll just cut to the chase. Do you feel that businesses can discriminate or "opt out" (I don't really care about the semantics or connotations, so I included both views) of doing business with those they find morally reprehensible because -- still struggling (these 40 hour "all nighters" are killing me) -- basically, do you think that businesses should be given rights and treated as people treat people? I can try to rephrase that in the near future if it's still not making sense. Which, it probably isn't.

Swish, it is a Christian's duty to spread God's word and to strive for a world that follows God's laws. We are always going to be in other people's business because we believe you have a soul and we don't want your soul to perish but have everlasting life even if you don't believe in it.

Every single law on the books is personal because a group of people decided to make it happen. Christian's have just as much right to lobby for laws that suit them as non Christians. If you don't like that then move to someplace that is not a Democracy.

You have the right to lobby for laws you like too but just because you do doesn't mean I don't have the right to fight the establishment of those laws and even if you pass them I still have the right to have them abolished.

------------------------------------------

Churches and gays have no business being together. The church does not belong to the church members. It belongs to God. The church should be following the rules that God established. Church is not for everyone. Everyone does not belong there. The people who belong there are the ones who submit to God's laws and obey them. Yes, you might enter and seek God's salvation but if you're not going to accept it and change your ways then you should not be allowed to stay.

Paul is not shy when it comes to how to deal with sexual immorality with in the Church. This is from 1 Corinthians chapter 5 verses 9 through 11

" 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[d]

Paul is very clear to "EXPEL THE WICKED" from the Church.

If you say that you are a Christian then OBEY God's word. The Church is a place of rest against those who would sin. It is for worshiping God and being fortified against temptation. The Church is a holy place and not your social club. If you what to evangelize then get your butt off the pew and witness to those outside the church. It's not just your preacher's job but also yours.

I think, so long as, a customer is not asking for anything you don't normally provide then the business is obligated to help them. If the customer asks the business to do something they find offensive then they have the right to refuse that request but should still offer their normal services.

For instance, if they make birthday cakes that say, "Happy Birthday "Name"" then why should they refuse. If the customer asks for something personalized like, "Happy Birthday to our Big Boylover "Name"" and it offends them to write that then yes I think they have the right to refuse it. The same as I feel that an Atheist baker has the right to refuse to decorate religious themed cakes if that offends them. In all cases it should be between the business and the customer and government should stay out of it.

The church of Corinth was an extremely difficult church to plant and grow. Corinth was a hub of Greek culture, and sex and idolatry were huge, and often interconnected aspects of Greek culture.

Paul worried that this young church could easily be dragged into the culture of the area, and thus be no different than the world around them. Sexual immorality was prevalent in the area, and in fact, many of these early Corinthian Christians wanted to have it both ways. Theirs was a very "enlightened" culture, and they were a hub of trade with the world. They considered that the could create a new, and "sophisticated" version of Christianity, by adding in parts of the world around them, such as sex, into their practices. They were also very prideful regarding this "enlightenment". Paul knew that this cancer had to be cut out immediately, or it would completely ruin this young church. He dealt with Corinth more harshly than any other church he planted because of this. The Corinthians were very worldly, and Paul had to make sure that they knew that they had to leave the world behind if they were to follow Christ.

All of Paul's letters have to be taken in context with regards to the people he wrote to, and the circumstances of the day and cultures.

Am I saying that any sexual immorality is right or proper? Absolutely not. However, Paul dealt with these things far more swiftly and immediately in that particular Corinthian church because he knew the consequences if he did not.

I do not believe that gay people should be treated any differently than any person who takes part in any other type of sexual immorality listed in the Bible. Do we throw a young couple out of the church because they are living together? Do we throw out the young man who goes out on the weekend and gets drunk, and then gets in fights, or chases women? Do we throw out the woman who had sex outside of marriage the past week in her relationship? Do we cast out the divorced man who remarries? If we start throwing out sinners, the church is going to be completely empty. Paul wanted the church in Corinth to be separated from the culture around them. He had to tell them, in no uncertain terms, how to handle those who would try to move the church away from Christ, and into the world.

I don't know if you have a good study Bible or not, but there are a some that are very good for giving the background and context of situations like this. I have an NIV Study Bible (that I bought at Ollie's for right around $10, though I don't remember the exact price) and I also have a Life Application Bible. ($30, IIRC) They are wonderful resources for getting the background, culture, and reasoning for things that happen in the Bible.

This is what you now believe in.

Bought and paid for. You are now invested in a thought structure/ construct that another Human Being has produced.

That belief structure was translated to you by other Human Beings who are no more 'qualified' to understand God's Plan for His children than YOU already are.

God never required us to need 'study guides' to understand His desires for us, YTown. He certainly didn't require us to spend money to receive His gifts. Jesus Himself tossed out the moneychangers stating: "Do not make my Father's house a house of trade."

__________________

Do you not trust your own "one-on-one relationship" with God?
Why can He not speak to you directly?
Do the authors of these 'study guides' have some "direct line" to God that you somehow don't possess?
If they do, why would they not offer it to all of Humanity, free of charge?
Did Jesus Christ, the Son Of God, 'sell' his teachings only to those who could afford to pay ?

_____________

INHO, by engaging in this financial transaction (and believing what was written), you have actually taken yourself one step FARTHER from the message that God is trying to send to you.

THIS very thing is why I eschew 'organized religion'... and seek His message directly into my heart.

I steadfastly REFUSE to leave the fate of my immortal soul to the hands of other mere mortals. They will let me down every single time... and in the worst-case scenario, they'll lead me down THEIR path- instead of the path that God has planned for me.

Thank you- I'm happy enough to allow God Himself to guide my steps through Life. He's led me to place that gives me peace, a foundation, fine friends/loved ones... and a sense of purpose.
The only time I've ever been beset with bulls#it in my life, is when I've let other Human Beings influence my life choices.

God has never failed me.

And I've never needed some other chunk of 98.6 to tell me how I should go about it. My 'direct line' to Him has always been enough.

No church.
No denomination.
No ideology.

Just Pure Message... one day at a time.

It's been beautiful.

.02,
Clemdawg.

It is commentary and background on the people involve in various areas of the Bible. I have found it very useful to understand what the various people did, and how that could have impacted how others reacted and /or interacted with them.

It is not telling me what to think, but rather giving background on the people involved. I knew that the churh at Corinth had done wrong in the eyes of Paul, but I really did not know all of the background on the people of the region, how they thought of themselves, their practices and culture, and so on. All of that is important in considering what Paul wrote to them, especially as he was nowhere near as harsh towards other young churches.

Could I simply read the Bible? Sure. I often do just that. However, I sometiems run into areas that are flat out confusing, and it is nice to have a reference to consult for more background and information, or to see where people are in reference to one another, background on what kind of town or city they lived in, and so on.

I am not relying on another for doctrine, but am using a resource to further clarify cultural and societal customes and so on.

It is like using a history book alongside the Bible to better understand the people involved. I do not believe that God would find anything wrong with that whatsoever. I am no expert on Jewish tradition, or Jewish customs, and the commentary and other information often helps me to understand better the motivations of the people involved.

Why do you feel that God would have a problem with that? Do you not feel that He can speak through more than one source to us?

I do not understand why you feel this would somehow be a threat to my soul. I feel closer to the people involved, because I understand more of the times and locations they lived in.



I also bought my NIV Bible, and my King James and Living translations were both gifts. Is there something wrong with those transactions? Biblical scholars will often use a concordance, like This one, to better understand and reference verses in the Bible, and to examine other verses on the same subject. Some feel as you do that just reading the Bible is enough, and others prefer to study it. I prefer to study it, and try to understand the people involved, and why they may have felt the way they did. Judas, for example, was a zealot, and at one time I was not 100% sure what that meant in the larger meaning of the Bible. Understanding that Judas was a zealot, committed to overthrowing Rome, and that he thought that Jesus would be a warrior king who would rid Israel of Roman rule, helps me better understand how he was tempted to betray Jesus, and why. I want that kind of information. Others are content to take their inspiration directly from the text, and that's fine.

As far as organized religion, I took a long time in finding a church I felt represented what I believe, and that I felt I would be comfortable with, from a Biblical stand. If you feel that get the same from just reading your Bible, then that's up to you. I do agree that too many churches today have messages and practices that I do not necessarily agree with, but that is why I have the choice to select one that I do feel comfortable with from a Biblical stance. If your method works for you, then that's fine. I enjoy the interaction with other believers, and the worship with others who also believe in the Lord.

I have been working my way through the Bible, and am up to 2 Kings as of right now. I also jump up to the New Testament from time to time, especially if there is a prophesy in the Old Testament that Jesus fulfilled, so I can read for myself, in context, what happened on both ends of the prophesy. It is quite incredible how many were fulfilled perfectly by Jesus. I would not necessarily get the same appreciation for that without the references in my study Bibles, because I would not have the same references.

You have your way, and I have mine, I do not think that God has a problem with a man being curious about the people in the Bible, and wanting a better understanding of them. If you disagree, you are welcome to your opinion.

I do want to point out that the Bible does tell us that we should get together with other believers.

Hebrews 16: 24-25 says: And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Colossions 3:16 says: Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Matthew 12:30 says: Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

Acts 2:1 says: When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place.

If it was not important to be gathered together, then why would the disciples do so. If church was not important to God, why would He choose Paul to take His message to the Gentiles, and start churches all over much of the Gnetile world?

I understand your resistance to some churches, but I do not believe that God intended His followers to be solitary in their faith. I believe that He wants us to gather together, and rejoice, help and correct one another, strengthen each other in faith, and worship the Lord together. That is what the Bible tells us, isn't it? (and I admit that I stayed away from churches for a very long time myself, not trusting in a church to give me the message of God that I wanted) I was wrong. I am much more fulfilled, spiritually, by gathering together with other believers, and learning from a Pastor who has studied and knows the Bible better than I do, and who can communicate the Word of God into everyday messages.

I think that God wants us to learn, not just read. (and I am not accusing you of that, but that is what I would probably do if I approached it the same way you do) Your approach simply would not work for me. If it works for you, then wonderful.

What if the gay couple wants a cake that says, "Congratulations"?

Don't take this too harshly but you are mislead about the purpose of the church. The purpose of the church is not to collect sinners and evangelize them. The Church is a holy place of rest and learning for those who are saved. The common mistake many churches make is trying to be a collector of people regardless of their behavior. This is because they want the church to evangelize so that they don't have to bother with it. It's corrupting the Church to justify being lazy.

The message of the bible is very consistent in throwing out the people who come to Church but refuse to change their ways.

Matthew 18:15-17
Galatians 6
2 Thessalonians 3:3-15
Titus 3:10
Hebrews 12:11

It's the same message over and over again. The problem is that being politically correct has ruined many pastors. Pastors need to preach the WORD and not some diluted weakened version of it.

Jesus didn't come here for the saved, he came her for the sinners.

Most of his preaching was out in the open, not inside a Church.


Clem, Jesus' issue with the money changers in the Temple was that they were cheating the people with inflated conversion rates for their money (Due to the large influx of outsiders in for Passover), and the vendors were price gouging for their sacrifices.

You could also add that the Temple had a monopoly on that business. The animals to be sacrificed were owned by the Pharisees, and the Temple money was manufactured by them too.

That is correct. The farms of the chief Pharisee provided perfect animals for sacrifice, and these were the only animals that could be used for offerings. (sin offerings, IIRC) There was a single currency that was used inside the temple, and it was converted by the money changers at a horrible exchange rate for the ordinary people who came to the temple. It was a corrupt system, resulting from corrupt leadership. (which was a consistent theme in Jesus earthly ministry, as He did not come to destroy the Jewish religion, but to fulfill it)

I recommend you declare which version of the Bible you are reading from so there is no confusion, although I think this is the TNIV? I tend to only read the KJV 1611 Bible and it makes no mention of sexual immorality, just fornication. While similar, they have several key differences.

And specifically when it comes to fornication, there was a much different concept of marriage during the time of Jesus than there is now. Before marriage the couple would co-habitate and the man would declare the woman to be his exclusive sexual property. It was not until the 6th century that co-habitating couples were not considered married and their children illegitimate. The idea of pre-marital sex being fornication is more thanks to the Byzantine Empire than to the Bible.

And the world wonders why there are sooooo many churches from sooooo many religions allll serving the same Boss! We are seeing it here in these posts.

The Lord Our God Is One! Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit!!!

Kinda sounds like the here and now in this country.

I want you to look, with me, at these verses, and the verses notes:

The message of the bible is very consistent in throwing out the people who come to Church but refuse to change their ways.

Matthew 18:15-17: 15“If your brother or sister[a] sins,[b] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Notes for this verse:

Matthew 18:15 The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a fellow disciple, whether man or woman; also in verses 21 and 35.
Matthew 18:15 Some manuscripts sins against you
Matthew 18:16 Deut. 19:15

Is this talking about someone you are trying to bring to Christ?

Galatians 6:1: Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.

This verse speaks of restoring a believer to the church. (and I had to assume that this was the verse you were referring to)

2 Thessalonians 3:3-15:3 But the Lord is faithful, and he will strengthen you and protect you from the evil one. 4 We have confidence in the Lord that you are doing and will continue to do the things we command. 5 May the Lord direct your hearts into God’s love and Christ’s perseverance.

Warning Against Idleness
6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. 13 And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.

14 Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

I am not sure what your point is with this verse and your larger point. Please explain.

Titus 3:10: (I expanded this to 3-10 for further context) 3 At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. 8 This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.

9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.

OK, this speaks of foolish arguments by a member of the body of the church. This, again, does not speak of those coming into the church, but rather brothers and sisters who have "drifted" to places they should not go.

Hebrews 12:11: (I am going to expand this verse for further context) 8 If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! 10 They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. This verse speaks of "true sons and daughters", and enforcing discipline among such. I don't think that anyone argues that the church should enforce church discipline.

I respectfully submit that you never answered this portion of my post:

I do not believe that gay people should be treated any differently than any person who takes part in any other type of sexual immorality listed in the Bible. Do we throw a young couple out of the church because they are living together? Do we throw out the young man who goes out on the weekend and gets drunk, and then gets in fights, or chases women? Do we throw out the woman who had sex outside of marriage the past week in her relationship? Do we cast out the divorced man who remarries? If we start throwing out sinners, the church is going to be completely empty. Paul wanted the church in Corinth to be separated from the culture around them. He had to tell them, in no uncertain terms, how to handle those who would try to move the church away from Christ, and into the world.

Yes, the Bible says that a person who engages in sex with someone of the same gender sins. It also says that those who commit the other actions I listed also sin. Why do you seem to carry forth a one sin only condemnation of people within the church?

There is very little street preaching in today's world. The church's purpose has expanded beyond being only a meeting place for believers. (if that was ever truly its only purpose) Today the church takes on a dual purpose of a meeting place for believers, as well as an outreach to those who are have never heard of Jesus, or who have nor given themselves to Him. Do you think that the church should cease that aspect of its current operation? Should we only allow perfect believers inside the walls of the church? We are going to have empty churches across America if we take that road.

Jesus regularly met with sinners. He regularly ate with them. (a massive violation of Jewish protocol of the time) He taught them. He did not segregate Himself away from them. Paul had a purpose for what he wrote in his letters. Understanding why Paul wrote different things to different churches, with different areas of emphasis, is important.

Paul wrote, to the young church in Rome, in Romans 1:14: I am obligated both to Greeks and non -Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. He was not interested in only reaching out to the devout. He was not interested in reaching out to those who had already accepted Christ. In many cases, for safety's sake, Paul (and the other Apostles) had to teach quietly with small groups in peoples homes. These groups would include those who were interested in Jesus, and those who were there due to other circumstances. (such as extended family members, and so on) Paul did not clear the room of those who were not perfect before he would teach any more than Jesus would have.

Now I do agree with those who have said that religion is not the answer, but rather the Spirit of God working in our lives is. I do think that the spirit of God is amplified both my being in the presence of other believers, worshiping and learning with them, and also helping the unbeliever into belief in Jesus Christ.

I do not want to come off as though I am trying to criticize you for you faith. I respect the fact that you feel so strongly about Jesus Christ. However, we need to look at how Jesus taught, and how Paul taught and built "his" churches with an eye on who those churches were, and why he might take one tack with one group of people, and another with a different group of people.

Did Paul treat all of the churches he planted exactly the same way? If not, then why not? What were the differences?

Question. Then how come people are so against other religions that aren't christian?

I've explained this before, but everybody ignores it: in Islam, Allah IS God! The same one Christians worship. Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Just like they don't say the English word God in africa; it's pronounced something else.

You DARE to question ME!!!??? Heh Hem, sorry, that just blurted out swish. Sips his coffee...

Did you not read the earlier post where I said the same thing you are saying and finished it with...
God is Greatest!
God is Greatest!
Allahu Akbar!

The God of Christians!
The God of the Jews!
The God of the Muslims!

I would think by now the Boss is Pissed at us!

It could be said that freedom of speech can be used to discriminate against others, to attack others.



I think that to discriminate against one group or another is the right of the individual. Since you stated it, what do you mean by "receive certain benefits from work"? Do you mean to say that anyone is entitled to the results of my labor? I have no say about what I decide to labor for?



I think you have things backward. I am open to your point of view. I am not trying to stop your point of view. I am only wanting to point that it is an oppressive point of view.



The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not the Constitution. It is a poorly designed law to try to give unto Blacks rights they already should have under the Constitution. I think the CRA of 1964 is hurting minorities more than it helps them. I notice you make note of a person's sexual orientation. Does that mean you wish the government to be involved in the sexual orientation of its citizens? Does it stop with sexual orientation? Once you accept the government the ability to peek into your bedroom, they will not stop at just peeking in. It is the nature of government to involve itself in every aspect of its citizen's life.



Your allowing your daughter to go to church with your grandmother does not means you are tolerant. It means you let your daughter go to church with grandma. If you wish to show me tolerance, take your daughter to church, sit with her in the pew, listen to the sermon, and then in the end, say nothing opposing it to your daughter, your wife, or your daughter's grandmother even though you find the sermon and religion itself offensive.




If you do not wish to discuss the legality of religious freedoms in the USA, I can be quiet. I only respond when I read things that are claiming to be tolerant while being intolerant . I am not a very religious person, if by religion you mean belonging to any organized denomination. I am a believer in the freedoms of all citizens of the USA. If you wish to listen to or talk to others about religious dogma, that is up to you. I do not want to stop that. I followed the thread and when it comes to preaching or evangelizing to me, I ignore it. I am only interested in religious freedom in the aspect on how it affects my individual rights. If you wish to not be preached to, stop talking to those who preach to you. I am sorry you find my point of view close minded. I know that not to be the case. My point of view is well thought out with reason and facts. Emotions only enter my thoughts when I see people stating opinions as facts or when they claim rights over others they do not have.

Sadly the CRA of 1964 makes no provisions for LGBT lifestyles.



I'd love to see examples where the Civil Rights Act of 1964 hurt minorities.



Uhm, while Swish personally disagrees with the teaching of the church, he is allowing his daughter to go and make up her own mind about it.

To put your example on the other foot, the only way christians could show tolerance for homosexuality would be to take part of the specific homosexual acts as a voyeur and then say nothing about it. As many preachers have said, "Tolerance does not mean approval."

The whole premise by which the Civil Rights Act is based is that individuals need their rights protected by legislation rather than by treating them equally under the Constitution. The CRA of 1964 has created divisions or classes of people based not on their citizenship but upon their belonging to a group. The entire Great Society programs of Lyndon Johnson is based on division of the citizenry. Black citizens instead of being embraced and treated equally under the Constitution, they were divided out for "special protections". Many in the Black political leadership do not wish to have blacks treated equally because they will not need them to advocate for them any further. They would have every law abiding citizen in the USA advocating for them. The black family destruction and inner city destruction over the last 50 years is a direct result of the Great Society and the CRA of 1964. http://yourblackworld.net/2013/03/02/the...s-report-shows/





I disagree. I believe it has more to do with the family dynamic than his personal tolerance. If he truly hates religion, he is allowing his daughter to walk into the den of evil all in the name of tolerance? I am not a father but I would not think that Swish would send his daughter to be "brainwashed".


I do not say that. Anything I said did not advocate that. To be tolerant is to accept views you do not agree with. Swish does not accept the religious beliefs of the church his daughter goes to. He stated after making that proclamation that he HATED RELIGION. Hate is not tolerance. If he said I disagree with the religion and allowed his daughter to experience other things and left it there, I would be more likely to believe he is tolerant. His proclamation that he HATES religion means he is intolerant. To be tolerant of a homosexual as a Christian, one must not hate them. They can disagree with their beliefs and try to change their mind but to claim HATRED, that person could not be considered tolerant.

It's getting kind of long in the tooth for a simple forum discussion. Please forgive me for not answering all your points individually. I admit to laziness ^^

It all boils down to treating a Church as the Temple of God. It is not a place to bring lost souls to Christ. That might happen but it is NOT the purpose. I think this is the main problem with the mindset of many Churches. You see, because the members don't want to witness and evangelize themselves outside of church(which is what people like Swiss want) they want the church to do it for them. THAT IS VERY WRONG.

The Temple of God is for worshiping him, for rest against a sinful world, and for rebuilding those bonds among the members that may have weakened during the week.

It is NOT a place for lost souls to hang out in the hopes God will rub off on them. Treating the Temple of God like a social club destroys the church because members will see it as ok behavior more and more often. You often hear people like Swish saying, "If Christians are so good then why do they behave worse than the lost?" Well its because the churches these days are full of lost souls who don't act or behave like the Bible tells them too. Then because the Church gets caught up in money it starts gathering more and more people regardless of if they are saved or not. You end up where the lost are being examples for the lost. It literally destroys the ministry and purpose of the Church.

This is why over and over again the consistent message of the Bible is that if a person in your church is living in sin and refuses to change then they need to eventually be removed. Churches failing to uphold the sanctity and holiness of God's Temple will not have God's Spirit there but instead be left with a useless and empty social club that is a poor excuse of something vaguely called a church.

It is better to cut out the chaff to preserve the Holiness of the Temple of God than it is to defile it with masses of people who do not honor God's word. If you preserve your church's holiness and treat it as sacred you will find that the Spirit of God will move the people to come. They will be drawn towards it naturally. don't be afraid to remove the sinners because they don't belong there until they are ready to change their ways. Your not doing them any favors by letting them feel that so long as they come to church that they are doing enough. Your actually hurting them.

you seriously have no idea what you are talking about. none. it's becoming laughable.

Just so we're clear, we're talking about the Constitution that at one point regarded black slaves as "3/5ths" of free men and didn't allow women to vote? Yea, everyone is defacto equal under the constitution...

While a great document, it has its flaws and to say that the Constitution had equality in mind for African Americans and women shows a lack of understanding of the document.

Man, that is absolutely wrong. Muslims consider Allah to be the same God that Christians worship, but that does not make it so. The Muslim God is capricious in the way he handles sin, whereas the Christian God is absolute. The Christian God provides an absolute path to salvation, and a person can know that they are saved from the moment they are saved, whereas a Muslim can never be sure. Why do Muslims say "peace be upon him" referring to people? (especially those who have passed on) Because they are advocating for that person to make it to heaven. Even the prophet of Islam is not sure if he makes it to heaven. There is a story in the Koran where a man kills a whole bunch of people. (I believe it was 100 people) He goes to a prophet, and asks if he will go to heaven, and the prophet says he is not sure, so the man kills him. He asks another prophet, and that prophet tells him that he has to go to a far away city to ask a prophet who lives there. The man departs, and he dies on the way. Angels on both sides move in to claim his soul, and Allah says they are to measure the distance to each city, and if he is closer to the city he left, he goes t hell, and if he is closer to the city he is going to, he goes to heaven ....... and then Allah moves the city he was going to closer, so he makes it to heaven. (or paradise,)

Allah is arbitrary. Allah is inconsistent. Allah violates his own rules and laws. The Christian God does not.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. While I do not think that the church should be used for any activity that violates the teachings of the Bible, to think that the church does not have a role in saving souls is just wrong IMHO. If the church does not do so, then who does? There are not "open air" teachers and preachers out in the world like there were in the time of Jesus. I do think that believers have a responsibility to try to bring people into the church, and into Faith in Jesus .... and that means bringing those who may not believe, at first, into the church. Man, that was Jesus' whole purpose in life ...to teach, and bring people to Him, and to be a living sacrifice for those who believe. No one believes if they never hear. Churches today have that dual purpose,and teaching people the Word of God, and helping people come to God, is a huge part of that purpose today.

Islam does not believe that Jesus was the son of God. Christians believe he was and that the only way to the father is through his son Jesus.

This nonsense where you expect the preacher to do all the evangelizing is wrong. It is the duty of each and every single member of the Church to go out and share the good news. Not wait for them to come through the doors when they feel like it.

The reason so many churches fail is they open the door to anyone and then all they do is go to church on Sunday once in a while and believe that is all they have to do. Maybe once in a while they might chip in for a fundraiser or something. hey I understand. In this day in age you're lucky when people even bother to show up. God forbid they do some of God's work.

Enjoy your social club because that is all it is. Say a pledge, have a ceremony, and show up once in a while and your in! By the way, we won't hold you accountable for your actions either. We are just happy to have someone show up...

A Temple of God is treated with respect and reverence. You are blessed to be able to walk through those sacred doors. The spirit of God is heavy and you feel it pressing you down as you enter. Your nerves tingle and you know God's presence is there. This place is sacred. If you want to enter then you better get your act together before you enter his holy presence. When you walk through the doors of a real Temple of God the weight of your sins will crush you down and make you want to repent. It's not for just anyone to walk through those hallowed doors. It sets the example for all who come into contact.

I've experienced both and there is a VERY clear difference without a word from anyone. Its a sad thing that most Christians will never walk through the doors to a temple of God because so few preachers and deacons are willing to sacrifice to keep God's house holy. They give up having God to live for the people.

Ephesian's 1:10 KJV

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

I agree with Paul that a Temple of God is there to please God, not the people in it. Stop trying to make all the sinners happy and instead seek to make God happy. If the sinners don't like God then let them leave till they are ready to change. Until they are ready to change then they have no business being in God's house. God's door is open if they are willing to ready themselves to come in.

lol.

Allah and God are the same. Sure, the difference between the religions is Jesus, which I've already said how Islam works with Jesus, and you chose to ignore it.

You know what Christians in the Middle East that speak Arabic call God? Allah.

Why? It's simply the Arabic word for God.

So you can close your ears and yell lalalalalala all you want, that's a fact. Sorry bout it.

I think his point was that the Church (as in the building full of worshipers) is not where the souls are to be saved, but Jesus intended for the congregation to go out into the world to spread the word, and those people would then feel the need to come to the Church.

If a church does not reach out to the community that is not within it's walls, then it is a church doomed to die with its members. very few of the un-saved step into the church of without being reached first.

-jc-

I should clarify.
There is God the Father and there is God the Trinity.
In my posts I was referring to God the Father being the same God to us all.

So in the future, if I referrer to God, I'm talking about God unless I am talking about God, so that would be God I am talking about. heeeeee

Oh look, the two biblical scholars on the board, who damn other people to hell based on what they believe is stated in the Bible, who also claim the Bible is very clear on everything and they know exactly what it means, disagree on what the Bible says. Shocking!!