Kansasdad

Thanks, much better

The problem is that you are forced to go outside the Bible. The texts in question do not address what were those things they "orally passed on". You make some assumptions: 1. That the "oral traditions Paul alluded to in specific bools were not eventually recorded in other scriptures. 2.That tradition you now hold are equivalent to the ones paul referred to. In both cases your argument is from silence. Actually it is your argument that is from silence. There is no indication in the slightest fashion to indicate that these teaching would later become written. Further, as we all agree, these are inspired words from God. Why would God tell us to hold on to the oral teachings knowing that they would eventually become written. It is your assumption that makes no sense. The only assumption I have made is that what Paul tells us is true and it didn't change. If you can show me where this was changed then you would have a reason to make that assumption. Otherwise we must maintain that what Paul said is still relevant. You have provided absolutely no evidence to contradict what Paul states. Concerning point two: Then by all means we should put them to the test. Are the oral teachings (traditions) being quoted from the Apostles? That is a very legitimate question. One we are commanded to ask and follow. On this do we agree? God Bless, K.D.

Yes I realise that, and I tried to explain it and reword the question. Do you understand the question now? It still comes down to how are you going to follow what Paul tells us we must do. Namely follow the oral teachings of the Apostles. Following the written only is not enough according to Paul. When I posted these early teachings it was rejected by some. If a person is going to reject these teaching then by what criteria are they rejecting them. They did not contradict scripture, they clarified them. They did contradict some peoples personal interpretation of the scriptures. God Bless, K.D.

Long threads get hard to follow. I have provided documented writing from disciples of the Apostles concerning the subject at hand. I was told that their opinion was not relevant (not in those terms). If there is some other way to know what the Apostles taught orally then let me know. The Bible commands that we hold to these teachings. The Bible tells us that not everything Paul taught was written, yet we are to hold to all of his teachings. Now when the teaching from their disciples do not contradict what the Apostles have written but in-fact clarify what the written is saying, Why is this being rejected. If a person rejects these teachings from the anointed disciples of the Apostles, then how are you going to hold to the oral teaching of the Apostles. As I stated above, in this thread we have different interpretations of the same scripture. I provided the teaching from the very first church leaders after the Apostles. Their teaching, which they learned from the Apostles, agreed with some peoples interpretation of the verses but did not support what others were saying. It seems to me that those individuals that the first church leaders did not agree with are the ones who are rejecting their teaching. So my question still remains, if you are going to reject their teaching, and their teaching does not contradict the written scripture, it just doesn't support your interpretation, then how are you following what the Bible tells us we must do. Namely to hold to those very teaching which you are rejecting. God Bless, K.D.

Fair enough, Lets not make this personal. My question should have been worded How Does anyone obey these scriptures. They are very specific and very forceful. How do we obey this command Paul gives us in the name of Jesus Christ. Also as to why this is relevant to the original poster, There has been different individual interpretation of the scriptures originally in question. I appealed to scripture and teachings of the Apostles to provide understanding of the scripture in question. By doing this I have been challenged for going outside of the Bible. The truth is though, that I did not go outside of the Bible, but in fact I did exactly what the Bible tells us we must do. Thus the question at hand is very relative to the discussion. When there is a question about the written what does the Bible tell us we MUST do. It tells us we must hold on to what we were taught orally by the Apostles. All I am saying is we all must follow this command. So how is it possible if someone reject what a disciple of the Apostle tell us he was taught, and that teaching does not contradict the written word of the Apostles? God Bless, K.D.

I am not impressed with your stubborn refusal to follow the Bible. You can try to muddy the discussion by bringing in me personally or by insinuating that we are talking about the catechism or the Catholic Church, or the traditions of said church. However the fact is none of your response deals with what I am saying. If what you are saying is accurate then you are saying that the Catechism and the Catholic Church existed from the time of the Apostles. Are you truly acknowledging this fact? Remember the people I have quoted were actual disciples of the Apostles. LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR, This is not about the Catholic Church or any of the examples you have given. The Mods have made it very clear they will not let a thread become a debate over one denomination. Stop trying to take this thread in that direction. The Bible commands you to hold on to both the written and the oral. It clearly says that Both are needed. Your assertion that only the written is needed is not found in the Bible. I have given you several verses that clearly tell you this. You just keep choosing to ignore them. You can not just pick and choose to follow some verses and not others because you don't like them. Let me Quote the Bible again. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess. 2:15)" Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). And there are more I have quoted in previous post. You keep stating that I am "infatuated with 'tradition'" No I am infatuated with scripture and scripture tells us that we must, in the name of Jesus Christ, hold on to those oral traditions that were taught by the Apostles. Again I ask you HOW are you following what you are commanded to do by the Bible. HOW are you holding on to the oral traditions taught by the Apostles. To claim that you only need the written is to call the Bible false. Such claim is outside of the Bible. But don't take my word on it. The Bible tells us there are two ways to measure such a claim. By the written scripture and by the oral teaching of the Apostles. We have already seen over and over again in the most direct language that the Written says we must hold on to BOTH. So your only other Biblically approved avenue is to show that the Apostles taught this orally. Of course you will not be able to find this teaching from the Apostles because it would contradict what they wrote. If however your only claim to this "truth" is your personal interpretation, or some other mans personal interpretation then you are not following the Bible but you are following the traditions of Man. Sorry but your smoke screen tactics of not dealing with this scripture are not working. Until you can answer this question you are ignoring scripture. HOW are you going to hold on to the oral teachings of the Apostles? God Bless, K.D.

Huh, what? Of course I am going to obey God. That is my desire always. What command of Jesus Christ are you talking about, precisely? Please see my post above. Thanks, K.D.

Where did you possibly get this from. This is not what scripture teaches at all. Paul clearly tells us to hold on to BOTH what he has written AND what he has taught orally. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess. 2:15)" You can't just pick and choose some verses to follow and totally ignore others. Your insistence to only follow what he wrote is in violation of what Paul tells us we must do. Yes I agree that what Paul taught orally will not change what he wrote. Nowhere did I ever advocate such a notion. But you still have failed to explain how you are going to follow what we are commanded to do in the name of Jesus Christ. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). To claim these traditions were all written down is ridicules. Paul himself tells us otherwise. I have given you reference to the very men who were taught by the Apostles and yet you reject what they have to say. Who else would know what the Apostles taught to them orally. If you refuse to listen to them then How are you going to obey the Bible. This is not a suggestion. This is something Paul tells us we must do. You keep trying to make this a statement against the Catholic Church. I already told you I was perfectly willing to take the Catholic Church completely out of the discussion. Besides, by your own words the Catholic Church didn't exist before 320 Ad. I am talking about disciples who lived hundreds of years before that. Men who actually lived with and shortly after the Apostles. Your whole response is an attempt to avoid addressing what scripture says. Tell me, if you refuse to listen to the very disciples of the Apostles, how are you going to hold on to what Paul taught by word of mouth? Remember don't tell me it is not important, Paul commands it in the Name of Jesus Christ. How much more blunt do you need. God Bless, Kansas Dad

or Yasser Arafat

Extrabiblical. He sounds like a religious dude. Religious people don't do much for me. Is this extrabiblical/ "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). You have never answered how are you going to obey the Bible. This is a command in the name of Jesus Christ. Are you going to follow it. Tell me how?

So what did the Apostles teach the very first church about this subject. Lets see.... Ignatius of Antioch (remember him, He learned this from the Apostle John himself) "For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]). "For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop" (ibid., 8). God Bless, K.D.

This is what I have so far; Linus: Was taught by the apostles directly All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189) The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads: After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus. Clement: Was taught by the Apostles directly: According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time "most of the Latins" held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (De viris illustr., xv). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, Ignatius of Antioch: Studied under the Apostle John with his friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John. If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch and the immediate successor of Evodius (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, iii, 22). Theodoret ("Dial. Immutab.", I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) is the authority for the statement that St. Peter appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch. Polycarp : Studied under the Apostle Paul We now come to the passage in St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III,3) which brings out in fullest relief St. Polycarp's position as a link with the past. Just as St. John's long life lengthened out the Apostolic Age, so did the four score and six years of Polycarp extend the sub-Apostolic Age, during which it was possible to learn by word of mouth what the Apostles taught from those who had been their hearers. In Rome the Apostolic Age ended about A.D. 67 with the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the sub-Apostolic Age about a quarter of a century later when St. Clement, "who had seen the blessed Apostles", died. In Asia the Apostolic Age lingered on till St. John died about A.D. 100; and the sub-Apostolic Age till 155, when St. Polycarp was martyred. Hegesippus A writer of the second century, known to us almost exclusively from Eusebius, who tells us that he wrote in five books in the simplest style the true tradition of the Apostolic preaching. His work was entitled hypomnemata (Memoirs), and was written against the new heresies of the Gnostics and of Marcion. Origen: Studied under Clement Who studied directly under the Apostle John Born in 185, Origen was barely seventeen when a bloody persecution of the Church of Alexandrian broke out. He assumed, the direction of the catechetical school, on the withdrawal of Clement, and in the following year was confirmed in his office by the patriarch Demetrius (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", VI, ii; St. Jerome, "De viris illust.", liv). Now from historical documented sources we can see that these men actually studied and received direction form The Apostles themselves. Do you question these very first church leaders after the Apostles? We are commanded in the name of Jesus Christ to hold on to these teachings. Are we willing to follow what the bible commands us to do. God Bless, K.D.

Ok I don't think your acconting of history is quite accurate but I am not going to argue that point here. I will give you the assumption that anything after 320 AD from the Catholic church is suspect. ( I don't agree with it but I will go along with that conjecture) Here Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). So in the most forceful of language Paul could use, he tell us that there is more to his message then what he wrote. We are commanded in the name of Jesus Christ to also hold on to his oral teachings. This is a command, How are we going to do this? The only way is to look to those very early church leaders, who were taught by Paul and the other Apostles. You have suggested that some were followers of Jesus's teachings and some were not. Therefore it would seem imperative to establish who the players are and which ones were teaching the same message as the Apostles. Here are early church leaders that I could find, Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, (A.D. 98). We have Clement who was writing around 98 AD. Lets see Christ resurection took place around 37 AD. Ignatius, To the Trallians, (A.D. 110). Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, (A.D. 180). Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33 (A.D. 200). Origen, Commentary on Matthew (post A.D. 244). Cyprian, To the Lapsed, 1 (A.D. 250). Firmilian, To Cyprian, Epistle 75[74]:16 (A.D. 256). Notice that every one of these early Church leaders were writing at least 100 years before your date of 320AD. Therefore by your conjecture had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Now by your assertion in order to follow what the Bible tells us we must do, remember Paul did not give this as a suggestion it was a command in the name of Jesus Christ, We absolutely must determine if these early church leaders were in fact teaching what the Apostles taught them. Are you familiar with any of these early Christian leaders? I will do a little more research and give you some historical background a little later. God Bless, K.D.

So then would you say that the Bishops of the church before 320 AD were true followers of Christ? Would you say that before 320 AD the Church leaders had knowledge taught to them by the Apostles?

No, I think its up to God whether they can enter the kingdom of heaven. I just went by the footnotes on the verse in my Bible (New American Bible - Catholic Bible). 2 [9-10] A catalogue of typical vices that exclude from the kingdom of God and that should be excluded from God's church. Such lists (cf 1 Cor 5:10) reflect the common moral sensibility of the New Testament period. 3 [9] The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10. So, anything pretty much goes. You can live in aberrant sin, but as long as you say some creeds, and assent to the Christian religion, that is pretty much all it takes in your book, isn't it? You are right, it is up to God who gets into heaven. The problem is you say that as if no one really knows what God says about it. You act as if the path to heaven is really just some ambiguous theologlical position, and none of can really know anything at all. Seems that God would be unfair to have a standard by which we are judged but leave in the dark as to what that standard REALLY is. It is not like God to leave us in the dark and then judge us for we could not possiblly have known. The truth is that God has told us who will and will not enter the Kingdom of God. His rules never changed. You are simply unwilling to be honest about what the Bible says, and are unwilling to face facts. Kind of sounds like the Once Saved Always Saved argument taken to its inevitable conclusion.

I don't think that is what I said. At least it is not what I meant to say. I don't think it is has to be an either thing. In fact I think compassion for example will have a positive effect on the giver and so intrinsically it is self serving. However if that is the only motivation for being compassionate then what happens when that compassion is self sacrificing. Let me put it this way. If the motivation is, I am compassionate because it feels like the right thing for me, what happens when it doesn't feel like the right thing, do we stop being compassionate. I don't think it is a calculation of its benefits, it is far too subtle for that. Rather it is a learned effect evaluated over time and effort. Eventually there is no truth only perception. Take, for example, helping a 13 year old rape victim get an abortion. On a self serving evaluation, one can justify this as being a good act. On Gods evaluation it never is. God Bless, Kansas Dad

HMMM? Burning Ember, Didn't you just say a page back that you didn't have to be Obedient to God and listen to Him when He said to do Good. Rather you chose to do Good yourself. Yet I seem to remember God saying something about Himself doing nothing apart from His Father, He was perfectly Obedient. ... I'm confused as to where the conflict is. Situation A: A Christian is told by God to do good works. They donate their time/money to a charity, and a few homeless people go to bed with a full stomach. Situation B: A Christian/Atheist/Agnostic/Follower of another Religion believe that it is the right thing to/feel the urge to do good works. They donate their time/money to a Charity, and a few homeless people go to bed with a full stomach. The end result is the same. So your excuse for not being Obedient and doing your own works is what? So wait, you're saying that even though I want to do good things on my own, without needing God to tell me that, I should do them because God tells me to? Am I doing something wrong because I feel like doing good things? Somehow, I don't think so. And as for the answer to your question... I didn't exactly grow up being able to rely on God. Or others. At school I would go there and get bullied around, I would come home to deal with... Less than forgiving parents. Friends helped out, but for a long time I could only really rely on myself. Granted the situation is somewhat different now, and things have changed, but I developed a strong moral code from being bullied around. If people are going to be selfish, hurt others, look down on them for not being like them, fine. If someone is violent, racist, hateful, then they are. But it does not make them a good person. It leads to the general detriment of society, it causes pain in others, it causes (for lack of a better word) decay. Hate, anger, and the wrathful conflicts of that nature can only destroy and tear down what good things like love, friendship, and compassion have created and bonded. Doing good things is obviously the better choice for the future of of any society, and its people. Actually what you are promoting is a atheistic view. The difference is that you are "doing good" for a self serving reason. The result for the recipient might be the same, but the result for you is very different. The idea of selfless acts is very difficult. By your definition if there is no self serving return for doing good then there will be no motivation to do so. Even if this self-serving return is the "warm fuzzy' if that is the motivation then it can be and is fleeting. It is defined by the giver. Thus doing good is motivated by only if there is a self reward of some kind. Now having said that, all good deeds have a "self reward" as an intrinsic part of the deed. However the difference is whether that is the only motivation. The challenge we have as Christians is that our motivation is to be for God and not self serving. We often fail this challenge, but we strive none the less. God Bless, K.D.

Sheesh! That happened decades ago! Well, Rush Limbaugh is not a Christian, but this is what I mean, [i said in another thread that I think was removed]. Those that oppose Christ tend to blow mistakes made by Christians out of proportion, or keep bringing them up, decades or millennium later, to discredit God. It's just an excuse. Everyone makes mistakes. Christian mistakes only prove that we are human and not perfect, nor do we ever claim to be. There is a huge difference between being a true Christian, and claiming to be one. That difference is not defined by our actions, rather by our relationship with the Lord. Hmmm you mean like the crusades, or When the "Catholics" were killing protestants, or when the "Protestants" were killing Catholics, or when the Jews were killing Christians. Just pointing out that WE Christians tend to do the same thing when it is to our advantage.

What is sad is that we have created a situation where the women themselves seem to enjoy, or seek out this kind of environment and attention. A similar but completely opposite example is how in some Muslim cultures women seem to want to be treated as second class. I am always amazed at how many Muslim women chant, and cheer a life style that treats them like property. Likewise in America we have women chanting, and cheering about a life style that treats them like objects. I can "understand" the men's motivation, they gain power, and dominance. but why do the women "want" to be treated as inferior? God Bless, K.D.

If you read Foxes Book of Maryters you might find that the Christians were killed by the Catholics for hundreds of years, so placing Christian = Catholic is not always accurate. In our modern age and in many places, there are genuine believing Christians that also happen to be members of the Catholic Church, but the opposite is also true. Many of the traditions and doctrines that are held by the RCC are extra-biblical, and as such are not accepted by the Christians outside of the RCC. Prayer offered to Mary, to Saints, and to Angels is one of the problematic issues, but there are certainly others. Discussing these things can and often does come out sounding anti-Catholic, because at heart it is. True search and obedience of the scriptures is required, where as any traditions without a biblical basis, such as Pope, Cardinal, and other non-biblical authorities, are not. Submission to such is not a biblical requirement, but the Catholics certainly feel differently about this. Changing someone's mind to even allow for an exhaustive search of the scriptures to really see what is and is not true is not an easy thing even if they really want to honestly search with you. To honestly search the scriptures, there is no quicker and easier way than to dig in yourself. Whatever your viewpoint, honest discussions just don't begin by starting with required statements that make things the same that are not the same. Ok give me your biblical deffinition of a Christian?

I am not throwing around labels. I stand against homosexuality and the notion that one can participate in it and be a Christian and all he has done is characterize that position in this thread as one of desiring to mistreat gays and such, and I told him to drop the liberal martyr complex. I am not throwing around labels, I am addressing his silly behavior. I don't really care if you like it or not, though. If you don't like what I said, you can just get over it, and move on. I said nothing abomut mortal venial sins. I don't use Catholic terminology, simply because I have learned that often, people use words that have meanings vested in them that I am not aware of. What I said, is that the Bible demonstrates that God does not weigh all sins the same, as evidenced in the fact that in His original theocracy, certain sins brought the death penalty, namely those sins committed with a high hand, such as murder, adultery, homosexuality, witchcraft, bestliality, and so on. Forrestkc erroneously assumes a wrong definition of sin and thinks that if a person can be materialistic and be a Christian, that they should pretty much be allowed to live in one of the most vile sins on the planet, and still be considered Christian. His assumption is that all sins are the same, and they are not. "maybe you need to drop your silly liberal martyr complex, and actually pay attention." No you don't throw around labels at all, and who isn't paying attention here. I at no time said I disagreed with what you said about homosexuality. And if you don't like me pointing out that adding those kinds of statements detract from your message I don't really care, get over it and move on. Oh and get a clue here just because you don't use "Catholic" terminology doesn't mean your expressed concept does not line up with that terminology perfectly. Either your ideas about how Gods judges sin are Biblically based and therefore the concept of mortal and venial sin is then also Biblically based, or your concept is not Biblically based and thus neither would mortal and venial sin. Whether you like it or not, you have just stated that you agree with the Catholic teaching about sin.

Actually God calls it an abomination and he does not do that to every sin. So actually we are weighing the way God does. There were certain sins that were punishible by death like breaking the Sabbath, yet stealing was not given that harsh of a penalty God wieghed different sins as being worse than others. Homosexuality is worse in God's eyes than materialism. Who said anything about throwing anyone out??? Stop trying to be so dramatic. No one said that we hate homosexuals, or that they should be mistreated. What we are saying is that Homosexuality cannot be cast as compatible with being a true biblical Christian. maybe you need to drop your silly liberal martyr complex, and actually pay attention. Stop throwing around the labels. You made your point then you messed it up with the last line. Let me get this straight, so now you are saying that God doesn't consider all sins the same and so there truly are mortal and venial sins? Actually, you are the one throwing the labels around. The Holy Scriptures make no mention of mortal and venial sins. What the Holy Scriptures do specifically say about homosexual sin is clear tho, written by the great apostle Paul: 1 Corinth. 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1Corinth 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. The Hebrew/Greek interpretation of an abuser of themselves with mankind is a sodomite or your modern day homosexual partaking in this abomination. Good try, but you no darn well I was referring to labels about people personally. Don't try to confuse the issue. And lets get real hear, The Trinity is never stated in scripture either. Just because the Bible doesn't have a certain word in it does not mean the concept is not there. Shiloh stated that God does not consider all sins the same. That is the very concept of mortal and venial sin. Some sins completely cut a person off from God. They are an open rebellion against God. You can not be in open rebellion and call him your master at the same time. A person can only serve one master. But not all sins fall in this category. The ones listed above very clearly do. And before some jump in with Jesus Died on the Cross for our sins, YES if Jesus had not done this all sins would lead to death, we as humans had no means to reconcile this fact. It is only because of the sacrifice of Jesus that it is at all possible for us to be included in the kingdom of Heaven. That part of the promise can never be changed by us humans. God gave it to us and it is there always, but he doesn't force us to take it, and if we choose to live in open rebellion against God that is our choice, as stupid as that might be. God Bless, K.D.

First your statments given as fact are not fact. They are opinion. You have been given another mans opinion about the Catholic Church and you have accepted his opinion as truth. IF you truly care for this lady then you should write down your specific concerns and go with her to the priest and together ask him your concerns. If your real intent is to promote the anti-Catholic agenda then it would seem your relationship would not be healthy. God Bless, Kansas Dad

Actually God calls it an abomination and he does not do that to every sin. So actually we are weighing the way God does. There were certain sins that were punishible by death like breaking the Sabbath, yet stealing was not given that harsh of a penalty God wieghed different sins as being worse than others. Homosexuality is worse in God's eyes than materialism. Who said anything about throwing anyone out??? Stop trying to be so dramatic. No one said that we hate homosexuals, or that they should be mistreated. What we are saying is that Homosexuality cannot be cast as compatible with being a true biblical Christian. maybe you need to drop your silly liberal martyr complex, and actually pay attention. Stop throwing around the labels. You made your point then you messed it up with the last line. Let me get this straight, so now you are saying that God doesn't consider all sins the same and so there truly are mortal and venial sins?

Just an observation here gang. For those that "know" me it would be painfully obvious that ForestKC and I don't agree on how America's social agenda should look like. However this does not give me or anyone the right to personally attack him on these boards. The tone and personal attacks towards him have been very harsh and in my opinion inappropriate. If you have proof that the Hillary camp started the rumors then present your proof, otherwise state it as opinion and leave it at that. Forest, I apologize for how you have been treated here. We all know that Forest is very liberal in his thinking, but that does not make him evil. Caring about the poor, the sick, the environment are not bad things. I don't think we have it all figured out so a healthy descussion on these issues is a good thing. Take the Iraq war, We crossed a line on this War. That is the plain and simple truth. We started it pre-emptive. That is a line and we crossed it. Now, is it good that we crossed that line or is it bad. That is a discussion we should be having, exploring all aspects of the issue, liberal and conservative, and more importantly Biblical. As far as Obama, If he is OK with Abortion, Homosexuality, and Women's rights, he is not a Muslim. Likewise if he is Ok with Abortion, Homosexuality, Corporate greed, Governmental corruption, Racism, Then he is not following the Bible either. God Bless, Kansas Dad