|
Clarification please:
Did this conversation commence with an illustration
involving 'Zack & Liz'? Was the issue at hand the capacity for obedience
prior to the 'Christ factor'?
Next comes a discussion re: some sort of
complete/unwavering/moment-by-moment obedience including the 'Christ
factor'. As to this latter consideration, I should like, once again, to come to
understand just who on TT is laying claim to what. With apologies, I'm less
interested, at least initially, in engaging in an 'interpretive debate' than in
hearing of the life experience involved. (i.e. Come to a common understanding of
'sin', then, the statement 'I (fill in your name here) didn't (fill in the
agreed upon meaning of sin) today, all day in thought, word or
deed.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: February 04, 2006 06:52
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting
observation
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 2/3/2006 12:02:21 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Interesting observation
Soooo, the moment of "conversion" presents one with the full ability to
be sinless?
Please tell me you are kidding!!
cd: Christ must have thought so as He clearly states go and sin no
more.Again why would God/Lord instruct us to do something that was
impossible to do-and tells them what will happen if they do so.Respectfully
John this is illogical as you are clearly saying that there is no difference
between the lost and the saved.
Joh 5:14
Afterward3326, 5023
Jesus2424 findeth2147 him846 in1722 the3588 temple,2411 and2532 said2036 unto him,846 Behold,2396 thou art made1096 whole:5199 sin264 no
more,3
371 lest3363 a
worse5501
thing5100
come1096
unto thee.4671
--------------
Original message --------------
From: "Dean Moore"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cd; To stay in perversion John will change the chemistry of
the body in time but all men are born equal.Naive? I wish I had remained
so on some things sir.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 2/3/2006 9:01:12 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Interesting observation
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 2/2/2006 10:02:36 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Interesting observation
Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me
concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that
homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the
way the are. Do you think homosexuals need special protection
from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups
would? Are you in agreement with the legalization of
homosexuality and adultery? DM
Well, if we are going to keep them from having jobs ; if we are
going to kill them or put them at the back of the bus, my answer is
"yes."
Homosexuality IMO is the far end of the scale we call
promiscuity. At the same time, I do believe (in
fact, I know ) some are born gender "confused."
cd; Sin is a choice.God doesn't make mistakes as
in-Oops I meant that one to be a women and accidently gave him
a male organ but I will send him IT anyway-then
they can have conflict over my word and they
can fight it out while I sit back on my
throne and laugh at those dumb fools. I don't think so
John:-)
jd
--------------
Original message --------------
From: "Lance Muir"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David:
It was your predecessors that lynched
the aforementioned. It was your predecessors that barred the
aforementioned entry to churches. It was your predecessors who
generated the plantation mentality still imbued in the
aforementioned. It was your predecessors, the
celebrated founding fathers, who helped form the bigotry that
still characterizes your nation of 'believers'. Do consider the
larger context within which that which you do is seen by those you
seek to 'help', David.......
Sent: February 02, 2006
09:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Interesting observation
JD wrote:
> Sodomite is a name we call people just
> as "nigger" is a word that
offends.
I don't see it that way, John. Sodomite is a Biblical
word, and it points to a particular sexual practice.
Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the Biblical city
which brought upon them God's judgment for accepting and
engaging this kind of sexual behavior. The homosexual
agenda has hijacked the English language by adopting the word
"Gay" for themselves. If they can incorrectly use the word
gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to remind people
exactly what we are talking about.
Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you that I
rarely use the word "sodomite." In fact, I suspect that it
is possible that I may have never used the word sodomite, but I
could be wrong about that. I usually talk about the
evil of sodomy, and I often talk about the University's Official
Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or Government
Funding for the Promotion of Sodomy and Fornication.
Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me
concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that
homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born
the way the are. Do you think homosexuals need special
protection from prejudice just as other minority
ethnic groups would? Are you in agreement with the
legalization of homosexuality and adultery?
David
Miller.
|
