revolutionist90

What of a person like a man I know named Patrick. He is a homosexual by orientation. He saw his behavior as sin and came to Christ. He has been celibate for 8 years now...is Christ's death, burial, and resurrection sufficient to cover his sins? He is still a homosexual by preference and orientation (though I am sure God did not make him to be so). Is this the repentance you speak of? Brother Paul P.S. I do not believe one willful sin is MORE sinful than another willful sin, and I do believe all sinners can come to Christ. I know the Bible teaches this lifestyle to be sinful an thus IMO it is but sometimes when I see extremists like the Westboro Baptists out there automatically condemning them to hell rather than loving them into heaven I wonder which is worse. I know you directed the comment to someone else but I wanted to ask if your friend views himself as ex-gay or simple remains celibate and believes God made him homosexual. There was a discussion a little while back on celibacy for homosexuals and if that was a repentence. He considers himself gay and does not remember ever feeling any way different. He became the music leader in his church (actually a Nazarene church) and still is to this day. It is clear to him that God considers all pre- and extra-marital sex to be sin and that God defines marriage as between a male and a female. I do not think being homosexually oriented is a sin beyond Christ anymore than being anything else, but practicing the lifestyle sexualy obviously is. A thief for example may still get the urge to steal and find themselves tempted now and again but if they do not steal any longer and work instead God is satisfied. What do you think? Is it really worse than the 1,000s of heterosexual Christians who are not married but have sex anyway? I don't think so. What do you think? Brother Paul I think I agree with you but I do get caught up in the wording. I see homosexual desires as a sexual perversion no more and no less than any other perversion such as bestiality, pedophilia (there are "psychologists" who do believe pedophiles are born that way). It is a perversion from good but so is adultery. I equally do not see it any more or less damaging than casual sex but at the same time I acknowledge that it is damaging to the person. The urges to be attracted to the same-sex I can see with being on the same level with the urges of infidelity in married couples. A person can be ex-gay the same as a person can become ex-adulterous or ex-causal sex I suppose. It is just another cross that some have to bear. In terms of the wording I try not to claim someone as a homosexual because then the sin becomes the identity. I equally don't see it as an orientation since it is a sin. Sexual orientation is blurry and can change. The word itself was invented by people who had no connection with God whatsoever and were at best amoral. So I guess if someone has homosexual urges, knows they are wrong, fights to not be conquered by such urges and prays for strength to continue to fight then that is repentance. I have read of some men who have been deep in homosexuality but changed their life around and even married heterosexually so it is not stagnant. It is just the jargon that is thrown around. I feel that calling someone a homosexual instead of stating that they have homosexual urges just identifies them with that one sin as if they cannot change. I think the whole gay agenda now where it is being introduced in schools and people are losing businesses and such makes it difficult to discern whether it is getting equal treatment. It is no longer something that someone deals with but is now something that is a person's identity, they are born with it and everyone must get used to it. I think if pedophiles, adulteresses and others were to try the same they would get equally scorned but the gay "movement" is the hot button right now. It is of now one of the few sins imo that has whole denominations claiming it is not a sin and "rewriting" the bible to confuse others to accept. It seems to be one of the few sins that people are really confused about. I don't think people are confused about extra-marital sex they just ignore it but homosexuality has whole fields dedicated to re-reading in hebrew, latin and greek what is means and in what context. I think that is why it may seem like people bully it more than others. So it is a sexual perversion to me no more no less, not an identity nor an orientation because the attraction is based in lust which is always perverted and it is thus a sin. In terms of the urges I guess it can be the same as a married man have urges to sleep with someone other than his wife but he must not indulge and he must know that they are wrong. I equally believe one should not even think that far and make-up an imaginary scenario on if something were to happen since that would simply be in lust. I do believe however that one day the urges do pass or become less frequent as the person grows in Christ though.

What of a person like a man I know named Patrick. He is a homosexual by orientation. He saw his behavior as sin and came to Christ. He has been celibate for 8 years now...is Christ's death, burial, and resurrection sufficient to cover his sins? He is still a homosexual by preference and orientation (though I am sure God did not make him to be so). Is this the repentance you speak of? Brother Paul P.S. I do not believe one willful sin is MORE sinful than another willful sin, and I do believe all sinners can come to Christ. I know the Bible teaches this lifestyle to be sinful an thus IMO it is but sometimes when I see extremists like the Westboro Baptists out there automatically condemning them to hell rather than loving them into heaven I wonder which is worse. I know you directed the comment to someone else but I wanted to ask if your friend views himself as ex-gay or simple remains celibate and believes God made him homosexual. There was a discussion a little while back on celibacy for homosexuals and if that was a repentence.

1. The old Harlem Shake was for a particular song but this "new" version is not for anything just random movement that does not have to be for a rhythm at all. 2. There is no style 3. It should not be brought into a church imo. It was originally for clubs and it should stay in clubs.

That is not the real Harlem Shake. Those are seizures. The real Harlem Shake has been around for decades and was mostly started by predominately black dance groups. It was/is considered club dancing and was never allowed in Churches. It is on the same level as twerking. This "new" type of Harlem Shake is just a rip-off and imo a way to try to circumvent the roots of the dance which was never meant for Church or anything Holy. Just because the dance is different does not mean the meaning has changed. Not only was the name stolen but now no one knows the origins and think it is just a little playful dance when it was never meant to be and still is not.

Have any of you ever met a christian who does not believe in Hell? I just met one. I was kind of flabbergasted so I didn't ask why the person does not believe in Hell. Any of you have an idea why some Christians choose not to believe in Hell? As far as I know the Bible speaks of it frequently so yeah this one is a head-scratcher for me...

I'm just asking if you notice people who completely ignore/bash old testament and many parts of the new testament and only focus on scriptures that Jesus quoted. I'm more asking if you notice those who seem to only focus on Jesus and ignore other scripture. I have noticed many of my peers only focus on a few verses from Jesus and ignore the rest of the bible entirely. You gave a good explanation of the difference between the old and new testament though. i think you would need to give me some specifics. I don't think I'm following your thought process here.. I'm kind of "out of it" tonight In the op I quoted a friend who said "I only believe in Jesus...he is love...the Bible is hateful". She ignores Jesus' Father and ignores the rest of the Bible because it is hateful. I guess in a way she believed that Jesus was someone separate and had no connection to his Father.

I'm just asking if you notice people who completely ignore/bash old testament and many parts of the new testament and only focus on scriptures that Jesus quoted. I'm more asking if you notice those who seem to only focus on Jesus and ignore other scripture. I have noticed many of my peers only focus on a few verses from Jesus and ignore the rest of the bible entirely. You gave a good explanation of the difference between the old and new testament though.

I can't pick one: gardenia, lavender, jasmine, patchouli, blueberry, strawberry, green tea, earl grey

Am I the only one who notices how some completely disregard the old testament, the apostles words and only focus on what Jesus says? It is like people ignore God's word and Paul of Tarsus and only focus on a few verses that Jesus quoted even though Jesus came to fulfill his Father's (God's) work and Paul walked alongside Jesus till the end. I even remember a woman who stated that she only believes in Jesus because he is love and ignores everything else including the Bible since it is "hatefilled" according to her observation. She only focuses on the verses like "he who cast the first stone" and "love your neighbor/brother" but generally ignores all the other things he said thus making him one-dimensional. Does anyone else notice the "Jesus only" crowd?

I do believe that there are beliefs that do not lead to salvation even though such claim they know/love God. Such beliefs do not compel others to obey God and follow his commandments but instead simply take for granted God's grace and mercy. If I have the worldy/humanistic sorrow understood well that too is not really giving oneself up to God. For example, I have an atheist friend who does not believe in God but every time a test comes around she states she prays to God. It is her sorrow and fear in that moment that makes her mouth move even though she is speaking to a person whom she claims she does not believe nor does she worship him at all. I wonder sometimes if God hears her and simply departs from her since she has departed from him. Not to say that he is not waiting for her to come to him and he has completely abandoned her with no chance of salvation but in that moment in her fear but still no belief in him does he hear. I guess for a minister/similar to a clergy a person can use their profession and claim salvation without really being saved. Personally my faith was strengthened by intellectual means such as reading history texts or scientific documents that compounded the evidence of the truth of the Bible. My profession as a student is not what my faith is based upon

The main organizers were democrats-liberals, the only black senator is a republican-conservative so...need I say more. Even at an MLK encouraged by those who claim they are tolerant is full of intolerance. MLK dream's has not been reached and I'm sure he would not have agreed with many speeches. MLK wanted unity and I do believe he would not appreciate blacks shunning other blacks because of mere political beliefs.

So he has drunk the kool-aid and good is evil and evil is good for votes just like a politician...when the news about him I always had an uncomfortable feeling that he probably just went where the political wind blew.

That is okay this is the internet and it is difficult to articulate what a person feels/thinks. I can see stereotyping going hand in hand with racism but I also think it can be in line with naivety or common misconceptions that come from media. For example, for some reason there are some white people who believe that I cannot wash my hair when it is in braids. While that could be rooted in racism I place it more with naivety, they could have probably met a black person who did not wash their braids or could be a misconception since most black people I know might not wash their hair for a maximum of 3 weeks so it could translate to not washing hair with a certain hairstyle. It is good you find the films relate-able and not a normal occurrence within black culture since the themes can fool others into believing such problems are prevalent or specific to one culture(media induced stereotypes). I would like for him to include more colors into his films to keep a induced stereotype from occurring and you are right that others will probably find an understanding with the movies if more "colors" were represented. I particularly want to see more Asians interacting with blacks since I think such a combination is a rarity. His films are also very melodramatic and I sometimes wish he would tone it down a little such as with the film "For colored girls" since some of the meaning can be lost in the drama.

it sounds as though you see racism in it. i don't. and i don't even see it as stereotyping black people... or religious culture. granted, you don't see white people in the films, but that's because tyler perry, like many black producers, has chosen not to include white people. that's pretty common in hollywood. but the situations in the movies are every bit as relevant and prevalent among white communities, (and hispanic, and asian, and probably every other color of race) as they are in the black neighborhoods. No you are incorrect and I'm not sure how you got racism out of my post. If I thought it was racist I would have simply stated it but I simply see repeated stereotypes. I do not see racism in the films... I see stereotyping. I don't think stereotyping is in tune with racism and I think his movies resonate with black people because he has themes that black people can relate too. Also Tyler Perry is black so why would he be racist against his own people? He is simply drawing upon the prevalent experiences in the black culture which is why he has such a large following. I don't think there is a a problem with him using many black people in his films. Though his themes can be relevant to other communities those themes are greatly associated with black culture and some wish he would break away and show some different themes. I still think Tyler Perry is a good guy and all but his movies frequently use the same themes that are always seen in predominant black movies.

Such people just don't take moral obligations seriously. They want to force others to accept something that they in their hearts believe is wrong and forcing that person to "compromise" obviously shows that such people have no respect for differing perspectives based in morality. But I am still waiting for a gay couple to go into a Muslim owned bakery and ask for cake that for me will be the topping of if society is becoming more anti-Christian.

It seems like there are many complaints that churches are not "welcoming". I am usually confused by these statements. At one point I see the argument that some churches might have great hypocrisy and arrogance thus turn away those who need help. But at another point I wonder what a person means by welcoming. Welcoming to one person might actually be accepting. So if a preacher is teaching about biblical views of a certain sin that a person in a congregation is experiencing but does not view as a sin (or bad) then that person in the congregation will not feel "welcomed". So how can one be "welcoming" but not conforming to one's sin? And can a person even be "welcoming" if they teach biblical truths that is offensive to another person who is in sin but does not see it as sin?

I'm not really a fan. I used to be for the plays but not really for movies. Honestly they are just stereotyping black people and our unique religious culture along with other hardships that are prominent in the black community i.e drugs/rape/gang violence. It is just a hodge podge of stereotypes and I don't think it supports Christian values at all in the films.

Bills requiring voter IDs have nothing to do with preventing voter fraud and everything to do with suppressing the votes of people who are poor, Black, Hispanic, elderly, inner city dwellers, those who do not own real property, those who do not drive or have drivers licenses, and so forth... And the vast majority of these are not Rebublicans! That said this move to suppress voting rights of Americans has nothing to do with race or voter fraud and everything to do with how Republicans want to change the voting rules to favor white, rural landowners.....Or put another way....Political tricks used to tilt the democratic process to favor the minority whites in America. My state (Pennsylvania) has just denounced through the courts for at least the 3rd time, such shameful 'voter id' laws for the illegal and fraudulent tactics they are...and have prevented any poll worker from even falsely 'suggesting' that voting without an ID as ILLEGAL had In my State, the plaintiffs (those who support voter Id laws) could simply not prove, that voter fraud took place for those who had or never no IDs. Elderly members of my own family, who have voted for 60 + years, without ID, without fraud, would have been EXCLUDED from voting under such laws, because they can no longer drive...afford IDs...or are simply too sick to go to the polls. What ROT! Thank God our courts overruled our Republican Legislature and recognized the fraud our proposed Voter ID Law was what is was: Voter Suppression....against the sick, the under-educated, the poor, the elderly, the minorities, and any one else who just doesn't "Fit" according to current Republican 'standards'...and yet whom the US Constitution grants the right to Vote! Lord Have Mercy, and Thanks Be to Him that He has not stood in favor of such sinful acts directed against the weakest in our Society! That's great that you feel that way but in Texas the ID's laws are to prevent dead people from voting. Also it still stands that in Texas you can get an ID for free and there are actually still ways to vote without an ID so those who for some reason really could not get an ID could still vote. As a black person, people who keep repeating that ID are used to suppress just equate in my mind to they believe such minorities are just too incompetent to get their own IDs. The elderly members of your family (if they lived in Texas) could apply for a voter ID without leaving their house. I cannot understand your plight because the elderly in my family all have some form of ID even the ones born around 1929 and before so if an almost 100 year old person can get an ID in Texas then I don't know what is stopping others. But obviously you have beef with Republicans so whatever I say is just going to be washed into anti-Republican spin that they are nothing but racist/oppressors which is fine because I think Democrats are the same. I really don't want to know what you think of black people who support ID laws or worse (gasp) black republicans who support ID laws! I would say Thank God that such people are proposing voter ID laws to prevent cheating and not have a dead person vote 1200 times for a candidate.

I understand that supporters of this bill truly want to help black people and others from not being disenfranchised but this is really too far. The ID's are freely given to those who do not have one and it prevents voter fraud and thus protects everyone's voices during election seasons. I think it is plain silly and prejudice for these people to assume blacks in Texas are too incompetent to get their own ID. IDs are necessary for EVERYTHING- food stamps, housing, banks, cars. Without an ID a person cannot get anything and assuming that black people in Texas are just living in pure squalor is prejudice and a large disconnect. My mother and I were really miffed when Eric Holder started spouting about how blacks in Texas don't have voter IDs. But the good thing is that the weight will fall on the DOJ's shoulders to prove that the voter id law is purposefully trying to disenfranchise blacks thus they have to prove racism. I honestly hope they lose because I want my vote to count and if a person is too lazy to get an ID then that is their problem.

Okay so the last supper was about studying art and renaissance but what are the five pillars talking about? If the school official made an actual connection similar to the reason for the last supper painting then it could be understood. Why should the student's learn about the five pillars of Islam anyway when the purpose is to understand the cultural ramifications of religion? Why learn about different religions at all and just stick to learning about math, reading, writing, science since the U.S lags so much in those areas. Never liked this new "core" thing in public schools.

A. I think breastfeeding is healthy for the mother and baby. There are machines that allow the breast milk to be placed in bottles. I would prefer women cover the breast up or put a shawl over the baby while feeding B. In my family we see nothing wrong with breastfeeding but we do encourage women to cover up while feeding. C. I'm pretty sure Texas is okay with it. I'm not sure if women are required to cover up but I do think there is a limit. Some women almost take off their whole shirt and that is not necessary.

I would not go. All first time voyages into uncharted territory (especially those without oxygen) always end badly and it take many tries to work out the kinks. And what's wrong with earth anyway it was made special just for us.

Congrats! Is this your undergrad or graduate?

I see that both sides need to equally work together. The way that some women (even teenagers) dress is for the men to stare and look. They are ASKING for attention, they want men to lust. In this day a lusting man is good because it is suppose to confirm a woman's sexuality and that she is beautiful. That desire is very twisted but lust is good in today's world. How many books speak of nothing but lust and carnal desires like Twilight or 50 shades of grey? How many advertisements show almost nudity (especially in swimsuit stores) and promiscuity? Little boys are bombarded with such views at an early age and due to the increase of pro-pornography advertisements (mostly for men) it is not seen as "manly" or "good" to not look at a woman when she decides to where a total of 4 inches of fabric on her body. It is also a neurological fact that man are more visual and are spacial oriented which is why they are better with directions/hunting etc. At the same time though a person cannot cause the other to sin. There needs to be encouragement in that when a man see's a woman he actually looks away and gives her no recognition. His fight with his carnal desires start then and he needs to learn not to give in. It is difficult but strength from other men definitely makes it possible. He not only looks away for his own betterment but because he wants to respect the woman even at times when she does not respect herself- and that is by not falling into lust and ogling her. Many women hate the claim that her body can cause men to lust and that they should just look away ( even though they half desire the lust for self-esteem). I would wage that many women understand their power over men because it is glorified in the media as natural and good. They simply do not want to resolve the power so they choose to fain ignorance and become stubborn when such a power is called out. Once that power is identified as being something bad many are bristled (as with all sins when they are called out) since it is glorified as being something that all women should have and is thus good. But at the core the women should dress modestly. At best their chest (including cleavage), torso and pelvic area covered (no pants that can double as underwear). I cannot tell you how many tweens have their entire bottom out in shorts. Not only is modesty an illustration of one's own self-respect but also understanding of the realness of lust. So a man can look away but a woman can also dress appropriately. Both sides can do something and it is not up to one. By making the statement that men are just lustful creatures and can't help themselves the person is stating that God cannot even intervene to help men with their sins, it is the women to control. But making the statement that men should just look away ignores the neurological components that men are more visual and generally more more sensitive to sexual stimulation (testosterone is a big factor) thus lust can be something that some men continue to grapple. We all have sinned but I do think some have one sin that they suffer from most whether that is lust, pride, envy or any others.

What is the job of an employer? Hopefully this topic is not controversial. I was listening to Mike Rowe (the host of Dirty Jobs) the other night on Huckabee. They were talking about the need to increase minimum wages and provide healthcare to all workers so the employees can live their own version of a content lifestyle. Mike Rowe stated plainly that he does not think the employer should be entitled to provide for basic necessities of the employee. So I guess the employer is to provide a pay for an honest day's work. The retirement/insurance should be overseen by the employee in their individual life. I have very little say because I have never had health insurance provided by my employer but I have had my taxes taken out towards medicare/government stuff. I am starting my own retirement fund with a roth ira so I don't know the other side of the coin. I've only worked part-time because I am an undergrad. There is the problem with part-time work. It seems that part-time work was intended for those who already had a stable financial bearing and needed some extra money instead of something that is suppose to compromise the entire financial plan for the person. But presently part-time jobs are more prevalent that full time due to the poor economy at the moment so some people seem to be expecting the same benefits of full time with part time work. So is the job of an employer to provide retirement/insurance? Are such prices already taken out of the paycheck and into a fund already? Should the employee have full responsibility over their retirement and insurance plans? Is the employer just entitled to give a safe environment, appropriate hours and a paycheck?