The Heretic

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

Is it? Just because an awful lot of people believe in it does it make it a book that fits these times?

It does for them.

If a lot of people read "The Da Vinci Code" does that make it historical and relevant to this day?

Up until 1992, an estimated 6,000,000,000 Bibles had been sold in 2,000 languages and dialects. Let me know when the Da Vinci Code approaches those numbers. http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/bestsellerFARQ.html
http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/bestsellerFARQ.html

Millions worldwide have watched the six Star Wars movies, and there's even a Jedi Church in some countries. Are we about to enter a new era in which all of us will speak backwards just because a lot of people watched those movies?

I can't speak for you, but I won't be. (another poor analogy)

[jochhejaam]

I think I'm going to need a link on that one. If there are many more than 90-100 million actual Christians in the United States, then I'm the King of Scotland.

My bad, I should have linked it in the first place.
It's taken from a Rasmussen survey.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=43957


Edit: I see that Peabody already confirmed this.

[Doc Jerome]

One of the fundamental teachings of Christ is that of forgiveness, and not casting judgement on others. I think folk of your ilk come perilously close to crossing the line on a regular basis, but if you all are asking God for forgiveness, I guess it's o.k., . . . Right?

[jochhejaam]

One of the fundamental teachings of Christ is that of forgiveness, and not casting judgement on others. I think folk of your ilk come perilously close to crossing the line on a regular basis, but if you all are asking God for forgiveness, I guess it's o.k., . . . Right?

Another of the fundamental teachings of Christianity is that the fruit of unrepentant sin is eternal damnation. sexuality falls into that category, and therefore, without repentance, results in that damnation. With that in mind, why in God's name would an alledged "devout" Christian perpetuate that lifestyle as being okay?
Oh yes, the le of the thread.

As I've previously stated Doc, there is nothing in Christ's Sermon on the Mount that remotely substantiates Obama's contention that it condones sexuality. Can you show otherwise? There's been a couple hundred views here and no one has presented one iota of evidence to the contrary. Could that be because there is none?

When standing before God, I'll be judge for presenting the truth, Obama and "his ilk" will be judged for heresy. I like my chances.



And why you're at it Doc, provide me with the reasoning behind how my pointing out heresy is judgemental. The facts are the facts.

[Doc Jerome]

Another of the fundamental teachings of Christianity is that the fruit of unrepentant sin is eternal damnation. sexuality falls into that category, and therefore, without repentance, results in that damnation. With that in mind, why in God's name would an alledged "devout" Christian perpetuate that lifestyle as being okay?
Oh yes, the le of the thread.

Well, you seem willing enough to recite catagories and levels of sin, continuing to leave out your own. How do you know at the time of death, that all are unrepentant? Seems like a judgement call to me. I don't think God would be pleased with you all making a general judgement call for every individual. That would negate the concept of forgiveness altogether would it not?

Politicians are not running to represent a particular religion. Within their cons uents are people from many different faiths, including atheists. No one religion should be placed in a higher regard than any other. What you are aspousing is discrimination (religious) pure and simple, which is unacceptable.

As I've previously stated Doc, there is nothing in Christ's Sermon on the Mount that remotely substantiates Obama's contention that it condones sexuality. Can you show otherwise? There's been a couple hundred views here and no one has presented one iota of evidence to the contrary. Could that be because there is none?

There is no need for Sen. Obama nor anyone else for that matter to prove that politicians should not condone what concenting adults choose to do behind closed doors. You can't legislate what happens in the bedroom. Nor should you be allowed to project your preference or religious beliefs on any other citizen. This undermines God's gift of free will. You have a right to choose for yourself.

When standing before God, I'll be judge for presenting the truth, Obama and "his ilk" will be judged for heresy. I like my chances.

I am heartened by the fact that you seem to be favored by God, but the fact of the matter is, in condemning others, you risk condemning yourself. No matter how you frame it, you know these words to be true.

And why you're at it Doc, provide me with the reasoning behind how my pointing out heresy is judgemental. The facts are the facts.

I just did.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

Well, you seem willing enough to recite catagories and levels of sin, continuing to leave out your own. How do you know at the time of death, that all are unrepentant? Seems like a judgement call to me. I don't think God would be pleased with you all making a general judgement call for every individual. That would negate the concept of forgiveness altogether would it not?

Okay Doc, we'll start off here by noting that you found nothing in the Sermon on the Mount that would exonerate Obama from being labeled a heretic. That was the thrust of the thread, and it remains intact.

Regarding you judgement rant, I never rendered an opinion regarding the possibility of repentance at the time of death (I assume you mean before the time of death, as it's difficult to repent at the time of death). You have attributed a position to me that is not mine. Sorry Doc, but I can't respond to a false presumptuous charge. In the future, if you'd like to engage me in debate, stick to the truth.

Politicians are not running to represent a particular religion. Within their cons uents are people from many different faiths, including atheists. No one religion should be placed in a higher regard than any other. What you are aspousing is discrimination (religious) pure and simple, which is unacceptable.

Your rambling sermonette has nothing to do with anything I've stated. Obama is perpetuating heresy, and in doing so is in direction opposition to, and defiance of, the teachings of Jesus Christ. Your contention that bringing that information to the forefront is tantamount to "espousing discrimination, is whacked out Doc...pure and simple...unacceptable too.

There is no need for Sen. Obama nor anyone else for that matter to prove that politicians should not condone what concenting adults choose to do behind closed doors. You can't legislate what happens in the bedroom.

He's free to condone sexuality if he so chooses, but he does not get a free pass when he implies that Jesus Christ condones this sin, because clearly he doesn't.

Nor should you be allowed to project your preference or religious beliefs on any other citizen. This undermines God's gift of free will. You have a right to choose for yourself.

Incoherent, and immaterial to anything I've posted in this thread.

I am heartened by the fact that you seem to be favored by God, but the fact of the matter is, in condemning others, you risk condemning yourself. No matter how you frame it, you know these words to be true.

A silly notion there, one that I shouldn't even go to the trouble to respond to, but no Doc, unlike Obama, I am not guilty of heresy, nor am I at risk of condemnation for pointing out that he is.

[j-6]

This type of crap is what turned me off of religion in the first place.

We don't even have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of anything from the original writings of any of the writers of the Old or the New Testament. Whatever ol' J.C. actually said has probably been bas ized three dozen times already to get to the 21st Century King James version of the Bible. Then we have quasi-religious people immediately denoucing someone else's opinion of what they think a 2000 year old passage means using words like heresy, damnation, condemnation, and repentance?

Personally, I prefer words like acceptance, praise, and tolerance, but whatever floats your ark.

I'll have to remember this next time I'm having beers with the lesbian couple across the street and we're watching do-gooders going door to door handing out flyers trying to convince people to attend their house of worship.

[Spurminator]

This type of crap is what turned me off of religion in the first place.

You and many others, unfortunately.

[Marklar MM]

This type of crap is what turned me off of religion in the first place.

I approve this message.

[Doc Jerome]

Sorry jochhejaam, your passion is surpassed only by your ignorance. You still fail to see that you are trying to live in the spiritual world ill-prepared, with a twisted concept of religion and it's purpose. You seem to be filtering your entire decision making process through your very personal and unique religious beliefs. I won't knock you for it, after all, it is part of that gift we were all given, . . . Free will.

Peace.

[boutons_]

"So then we should vote for Obama"

We did, eg, in TX.

Obama, now including caucus results, won TX, not Hillary, by +3 delegates,

but TX is so complicated that TX won't finish until June,

and Hillary may drag TX into court.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/0...ems_fla_1.html

[Phenomanul]

Sorry jochhejaam, your passion is surpassed only by your ignorance. You still fail to see that you are trying to live in the spiritual world ill-prepared, with a twisted concept of religion and it's purpose. You seem to be filtering your entire decision making process through your very personal and unique religious beliefs. I won't knock you for it, after all, it is part of that gift we were all given, . . . Free will.

Peace.

jochhejaam made an observation about Obama's stance that is fully backed by the scriptures. He in no way participates in deciding Obama's everlasting destiny/fate - that alone is up to GOD; or rather between GOD and Barack Obama's actions.

Unfortunately, the belief that 'calling a sin by it's name is tantamount to casting judgement' has become far too pervasive in our society. The Word of GOD is very clear on such matters and differentiates the two premises. Sorry to burst your bubble - but declaring that Christ's Sermon on the Mount condones the act of sexuality wreaks of heresy, blasphemy and apostasy - it does. It goes beyond Obama's obvious attempt to pander to his cons uency.

What you must understand is that the observation in and of itself does not mean that we are casting judgement on Obama; it suggests that he is not speaking in Biblical Truths. Not only were humans endowed with the gift of free will; GOD's Spirit also endows his true followers with discernment. How else is He to guide them?

Furthermore, the scriptures state that GOD's arms will embrace any sinner who turns from their lifestyle and turns to Him (that includes sexuality). That He is "Faithful and Just" to forgive us of our sins when we have shown true repentance. Our message is one of Hope and Love; not eternal damnation.

But alas.... to each their own.

[Spurminator]

Um guys? I think everyone missed Obama's point completely. While it's a poor choice of words (you should never call any part of Scripture "obscure," especially when running for President on the Democratic ticket), he's not saying the Sermon condones sexuality.

[Holt's Cat]

Clearly, those who engage in sins such as adultery and theft are mere pikers compared to the s.

Sure, salvation for your sins through acceptance of Christ as your savior is the key tenet of Christianity. But some focus a wee too much on that sin to the apparent exclusion of Christ's admonitions about loving the sinners.

I think that when that day comes for each of us, we'll be a bit surprised by the importance of those sins as well as the importance of loving those in spite of their sins.

[Holt's Cat]

Also, it seems that most do not understand:

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

[Phenomanul]

Any unrepented sin carries the same reward; death and eternal separation from GOD.

A weighting system for sin doesn't exist because any sinful deed is equally detestable to GOD.

The nature of sexuality however, is inherently defined by a lifestyle choice that continually rebels against GOD's statutes - as such they are in continual defiance of GOD's law. Until they turn away from that lifestyle, or rather until they allow Christ to break their bondage to their deviant nature, it becomes an irreconcilable hurdle in their path towards repentance. But this is no different from what rages deep within the souls of pathological liars, chronic adulterers, or thieves. Their lives can be transformed by the Power of GOD's Word only if they allow for Him to work in them. Rejection of this offer is tantamount to blasphemy - which.... just so happens to be the only unforgivable sin stated in GOD's Word.

[Extra Stout]

Did people not know that liberal, mainline, formerly-Christian denominations affirm sexuality? Is that some kind of mystery?

Obama actually is somewhat to the right of the UCC in claiming that gay partners should not be considered "married."

I do have a question for jochhejaam. Do you think that the state should discriminate against sexual partners with regard to property rights, taxes, insurance, inheritance laws, etc., in order to enforce morality?

[Holt's Cat]

Any unrepented sin carries the same reward; death and enternal separation from GOD.

A weighting system for sin doesn't exist because any sinful deed is equally detestable to GOD.

The nature of sexuality however, is inherently defined by a lifestyle choice that continually rebels against GOD's statutes - as such they are in continual defiance of GOD's law. Until they turn away from that lifestyle, or rather until they allow Christ to break their bondage to their deviant nature, it becomes an irreconcilable hurdle in their path towards repentance. But this is no different then what rages deep within the souls of pathological liars, chronic adulterers, or thieves. Their lives can be transformed by the Power of GOD's Word only if they allow for Him to work in them. Rejection of this offer is tantamount to blasphemy - which.... happens to be the only unforgivable sin.

Right. So why is it that so many are worked up about gays and not so much that Rick cheated on his wife with Mary? Heterosexual adultery in the US is much more prevalent than gay relationships.

[Phenomanul]

Also, it seems that most do not understand:

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

I caught your drift when you mentioned it.

Unfortunately it is the secularist anti-Christian crowd which fails to acknowlege that Christ himself established the principles behind "separation of Church and State". They believe that Christians are all trying to conform everyone into to their way of thinking; trying to subvert this nation into a theocracy. While that agenda may apply to some groups it certainly doesn't apply to all Christians.

All citizens of this country are equally en led to lobby for whatever suits their fancy - that's one of the core rights provided by the democratic state. The anti-Christian crowd hence, doesn't have a leg to stand on when they deny Christians the right to shape the laws of the land - they can't have it both ways.

But that argument was neither here nor there with regards to the thread subject. JJ was trying to expose the fallacy of Obama's statement. He wasn't advocating a premise that suggested that Barack Obama was trying to wedge further discord in the "Separation of Church and State" argument. At least that's not how I interpretted his post.

[Phenomanul]

Right. So why is it that so many are worked up about gays and not so much that Rick cheated on his wife with Mary? Heterosexual adultery in the US is much more prevalent than gay relationships.

I'm indifferent to their actions. I try not to get worked up about the actions of those I am not personally acquainted with.

[ChuckD]

Nothing's been reiterated. If McCain made no overtures to them, or shrugged them off, that would be construed as taking them for granted, and there would probably be a significant number of them not voting at all.
He has made overtures, recently restating that he's "always been a conservative" (talk is cheap, so he'll have to further define his conservatism), and he'll more than likely select a conservative running mate to further illustrate that he's not taking them for granted.

Now, with those things being true, a reasonable person would not continue to insist that they can be taken for granted.

He's actually dissed them pretty hard in the past, but if you want to believe the recantations of a politician, or anything else they say for that matter, I may have some beach front property for you in McCain's back yard.

[Extra Stout]

I caught your drift when you mentioned it.

Unfortunately it is the secularist anti-Christian crowd which fails to acknowlege that Christ himself established the principles behind "separation of Church and State". They believe that Christians are all trying to conform everyone into to their way of thinking; trying to subvert this nation into a theocracy. While that agenda may apply to some groups it certainly doesn't apply to all Christians.

All citizens of this country are equally en led to lobby for whatever suits their fancy - that's one of the core rights provided by the democratic state. The anti-Christian crowd hence, doesn't have a leg to stand on when they deny Christians the right to shape the laws of the land - they can't have it both ways.

But that argument was neither here nor there with regards to the thread subject. JJ was trying to expose the fallacy of Obama's statement. He wasn't advocating a premise that suggested that Barack Obama was trying to wedge further discord in the "Separation of Church and State" argument. At least that's not how I interpretted his post.

That's one thing that secularists have never been able to articulate to me. I hear that government is supposed to be determined solely by logic and reason. However, in order to use something like deductive reasoning, you have to start with a premise. How do you determine the premise?

[jochhejaam]

I do have a question for jochhejaam. Do you think that the state should discriminate against sexual partners with regard to property rights, taxes, insurance, inheritance laws, etc., in order to enforce morality?

No.

[jochhejaam]

Clearly, those who engage in sins such as adultery and theft are mere pikers compared to the s.

Sure, salvation for your sins through acceptance of Christ as your savior is the key tenet of Christianity. But some focus a wee too much on that sin to the apparent exclusion of Christ's admonitions about loving the sinners.

If Obama had engaged in theft or adultery, perhaps the thread le would have read, "the adulterer" or "the thief" (although I personally wouldn't have started a thread for either of those). For those that read this as an assault on sexuals, you have completely misunderstood it's intent (like it went right over your heads).
The focus was on Obama, and his gross misinterpretation of Scripture.
I would suggest a refresher course on comprehension for those that chose to see it as anything other than that.
Of course, the frustration of not being able to refute the crux of the thread left them with no alternative, other than to create diversionary arguements that had nothing to do with his heresy.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

This type of crap is what turned me off of religion in the first place.

We don't even have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of anything from the original writings of any of the writers of the Old or the New Testament. Whatever ol' J.C. actually said has probably been bas ized three dozen times already to get to the 21st Century King James version of the Bible. Then we have quasi-religious people immediately denoucing someone else's opinion of what they think a 2000 year old passage means using words like heresy, damnation, condemnation, and repentance? Personally, I prefer words like acceptance, praise, and tolerance, but whatever floats your ark.

And now we are fortunate enough to get to listen to someone who claims to prefer "tolerance, praise and acceptance" denounce an opinion he disagrees with. Powerful stuff!



Suggestion - Focus and get "turned on" to Jesus Christ instead of religion.

I'll have to remember this next time I'm having beers with the lesbian couple across the street and we're watching do-gooders going door to door handing out flyers trying to convince people to attend their house of worship.

Whatever rings your bell oh tolerant one.