VanPastorMan, are you holding services today?

[Sope Creek]

This goes to both your comment and Sope's above.

He also gets the long-sought redemption for Modell's termination of his father.

Aren't those Browns in Baltimore now?

 

[Sope Creek]

How so? Neat or one ice cube.

I know Sope pours in some cranberry juice but sheesh .....

I'm trying to decide whether or not to sue you for slander/libel.

I'll think about it . . . the hard part is trying to decide whether hoosboot has enough culpability to be a co-defendant, knowing that you don't have the funds to make good on the judgment . . . .

 

[Univee2]

Aren't those Browns are in Baltimore now?

Nobody cares about the Ravens. They might have evolved/devolved(?) from the Browns but it's Cleveland that haunts Mike Brown.

"Cleveland" will be his Rosebud ....

 

[Sope Creek]

Nobody cares about the Ravens. They might have evolved/devolved(?) from the Browns but it's Cleveland that haunts Mike Brown.

"Cleveland" will be his Rosebud ....

Ahh . . . thanks for the insight. Now I can watch Mike Brown unravel and understand the genesis of it.

 

[Univee2]

I'm trying to decide whether or not to sue you for slander/libel.

I'll think about it . . . the hard part is trying to decide whether hoosboot has enough culpability to be a co-defendant, knowing that you don't have the funds to make good on the judgment . . . .

The Kid Down the Hall says truth is the defense.

MTIOTF has pictures ....

 

[iuwclurker]

I have a buddy who has this syndrome. https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/blog/what-exactly-arfid. He had it long before it was recognized. I guess Duke started studying it and now it is a real disorder. One thing that seems in common is that people will eat white foods. My buddy would always eat fries and milk at gaming conventions, I never knew that was a large amount of his total diet.

Interestingly white foods tend to not contain lectins. Not to overgeneralize. So they can be quite healthy from that point of view.

 

[Sope Creek]

The Kid Down the Hall says truth is the defense.

MTIOTF has pictures ....

That's all I needed . . . see you in court.

Seeing @MTIOTF testifying under oath would be worth whatever it takes . . . plus when we get to Cincy I can watch MrsSope can drink you under the table.

 

[Univee2]

That's all I needed . . . see you in court.

Seeing @MTIOTF testifying under oath would be worth whatever it takes . . . plus when we get to Cincy I can watch MrsSope can drink you under the table.

"Gimme three steps ....."

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I actually did laugh out loud - none of that phony LOL crap - at this, the way it appeared on my iPad with "winning" at the end of the line and then "3 games" starting the next line.

You IT guys know all the tricks ....

I REALLY wish I had planned that. Alas, no.

 

[Digressions]

Yeah...no. Voting for some rich guy to pay more taxes to pay for welfare programs to help the "poor" does not equate to fulfilling Jesus' admonishment to help the poor. Sorry.

Additionally, there is an argument to be made that the government programs espoused by the other party in your example are also deleterious to the "poor".

(I put poor in scare quotes because poor is relative to location. In Jesus thoughts, the Democrats should not be so caught up in wanting the "poor" to have what the middle class have, and the middle class should not care what the rich have....because none of that matters. The Republicans should not care about tax rates either. Helping the poor is supposed to be a personal decision.)

In this thread, VPM has been quoted as saying, LGBTQ people and any politician that supported a specific LGBTQ bill deserved death, and we had a cake>pie debate. I tried to incorporate the two.

If we're going to mix politics and religion, shouldn't we be allowed to question VPM's intellectual consistency and honesty? VPM is the one that equated political support with religious impropriety (probably not the right word I'm seeking).

As a Christian, wouldn't you agree that the words in Red>Black? So why is it that he should be so judgmental of the people who break the laws of the OT, all the while he heaps praise to those that break the laws of Jesus himself? Jesus could have given any answer to that direct question, but he chose the direct answer I quoted.

IMO, VPM is demonstrating hypocrisy and selective outrage. If you don't agree with my assessment, then in regards to your first paragraph, "Well isn't that convenient?" How is voting for a LGBTQ bill deserving of death, but supporting wealth inequality and program cuts for the poor in the name of austerity, not?

And how is supporting such economic policies in keeping with the faith? WWJD? Did Jesus ask the 5,000 if they were working steady before he fed them? Did Jesus ask the sick for proof of insurance before he healed them?

I don't have time to address your second paragraph right now, but I would just say, that I find it lacking, both economically and theologically.

 

[Standard Issue]

In this thread, VPM has been quoted as saying, LGBTQ people and any politician that supported a specific LGBTQ bill deserved death, and we had a cake>pie debate. I tried to incorporate the two.

If we're going to mix politics and religion, shouldn't we be allowed to question VPM's intellectual consistency and honesty? VPM is the one that equated political support with religious impropriety (probably not the right word I'm seeking).

As a Christian, wouldn't you agree that the words in Red>Black? So why is it that he should be so judgmental of the people who break the laws of the OT, all the while he heaps praise to those that break the laws of Jesus himself? Jesus could have given any answer to that direct question, but he chose the direct answer I quoted.

IMO, VPM is demonstrating hypocrisy and selective outrage. If you don't agree with my assessment, then in regards to your first paragraph, "Well isn't that convenient?" How is voting for a LGBTQ bill deserving of death, but supporting wealth inequality and program cuts for the poor in the name of austerity, not?

And how is supporting such economic policies in keeping with the faith? WWJD? Did Jesus ask the 5,000 if they were working steady before he fed them? Did Jesus ask the sick for proof of insurance before he healed them?

I don't have time to address your second paragraph right now, but I would just say, that I find it lacking, both economically and theologically.

"shouldn't we be allowed to question VPM's intellectual consistency and honesty"

You can not question that which doesn't exist.

 

[IUCrazy2]

In this thread, VPM has been quoted as saying, LGBTQ people and any politician that supported a specific LGBTQ bill deserved death, and we had a cake>pie debate. I tried to incorporate the two.

If we're going to mix politics and religion, shouldn't we be allowed to question VPM's intellectual consistency and honesty? VPM is the one that equated political support with religious impropriety (probably not the right word I'm seeking).

As a Christian, wouldn't you agree that the words in Red>Black? So why is it that he should be so judgmental of the people who break the laws of the OT, all the while he heaps praise to those that break the laws of Jesus himself? Jesus could have given any answer to that direct question, but he chose the direct answer I quoted.

IMO, VPM is demonstrating hypocrisy and selective outrage. If you don't agree with my assessment, then in regards to your first paragraph, "Well isn't that convenient?" How is voting for a LGBTQ bill deserving of death, but supporting wealth inequality and program cuts for the poor in the name of austerity, not?

And how is supporting such economic policies in keeping with the faith? WWJD? Did Jesus ask the 5,000 if they were working steady before he fed them? Did Jesus ask the sick for proof of insurance before he healed them?

I don't have time to address your second paragraph right now, but I would just say, that I find it lacking, both economically and theologically.

Not going to argue the majority of that, other than to say you get into really sketchy territory when you try and claim that this party or that would be more supportable by things Jesus said or by things common to the religion that built up around him. That was my main disagreement and why I bolded the particular item I quoted. I don't think the Repjblican Party or the Democratic Party lives out the teachings because that is not their goal. Additionally, I do not believe that support for one political stance or another w.r.t. government interference or help in personal economics is what the main thrust of helping the poor should be. If someone is in need of a coat and asks for yours, give it. Don't take the coat from the rich tax collector down the street and give it to the poor person. Similarly, you could say that the GOP leadership has a callous approach to the poor too in the "lift up by the bootstraps" ideology. Lowering a tax so the poor person can buy their own coat was not the point either. It is supposed to invoke service and personal charity.

Biblical Jesus would say we spend far too much time worrying about earthly matters...both parties.

As to the quibble with my second paragraph, I am sure you would disagree. I have had the argument many times before. Each of us will be able to find support for our position. Reality is that when it comes to economics, the best answer is really an ebb and flow between left and right to counter balance the rougher edges and extremes of each.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Interestingly white foods tend to not contain lectins. Not to overgeneralize. So they can be quite healthy from that point of view.

Sounds racist to me.

 

[Sope Creek]

Sounds racist to me.

He said white foods, not white fools.

 

[IUCrazy2]

He said white foods, not white fools.

I resemble that remark.

 

[VanPastorMan]

Growing up a farm boy, I was blessed with a mother who could bake. Every Sunday my mother would make some kind of dessert that us heathens would consider heavenly.

But on special occasions- when she needed to make a dessert for a function- she would make two desserts. One for the function and one for us. She would get done baking them and pick the one that looked the best/most appealing and say, "this cake is for you, and this is the cake I'm taking to the event."

Now both cakes, I'm sure, were delicious. And many times they were hard to tell apart, because they both looked so divine, but Lord help us if we cut the wrong cake. Hell hath no fury. I can hear her now, "here I've been in this kitchen, all Saturday afternoon, baking these cakes. I did you a favor and made you one, and all I ever asked in return was that you not touch THAT cake. This is the thanks I get?"

In your post on TOS- that has been linked several times- you not only condemn homosexuality, but also the politicians that voted for a bill, that would give LGBTQ people equal protection under the law. Some might say it was a bill that shows compassion and understanding for people that aren't quite like you and I, and you castigate people to hell over, not only homosexuality, but supporting a bill.

In the Bible, Jesus is asked specifically what it takes to enter the kingdom of heaven. And his answer wasn't about homosexuality, or sins of the flesh, he said, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Yes, we all have sinned. I know this because we have an entire culture, economy, and civilization built upon eating the one cake Jesus asked us not to eat. And you continuously vote for, and espouse, and support the people who are the largest hogs at the trough. You do this while directly hurting the very people who Jesus asked you to help. You point and condemn, while your face is covered in icing and your chest the crumbs.

JUST STOP.

Several things wrong with your post. Jesus was not asked about homosexuality in his ministry. Therefore you would assume he agreed with the Jews view on the subject. They considered homosexuality a sin before God because this was taught in the Scriptures. Leviticus 18 for instance speaks about God's view on the subject. Now let me very clear about something. Jesus was the Son of God. What I mean by this is that He was the God of the Scriptures from Genesis to Malachi. So if Jesus was for homosexuality then He would be disagreeing with something He already said since He was God. It was not until Bethlehem that the Son of God added a human nature to His Divine one. The Apostle Paul spoke about former homosexuals and other sinners in 1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. Jesus Christ when He saved these people changed their lives. If there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual then there is also nothing wrong with adultery or idolatry. Today, people come to Christ and their lives are changed. The power of sin is being broken in their lives. A bunch of thieves, drunkards, and homosexuals are turning to the one true God who saves souls through the power of His Son's Cross.

 

[VanPastorMan]

Here. Unless this isn't you.

Yes, that was me. As I said above homosexuality is not the only sin spoken about in Romans 1. Homosexuality is a symptom of people who reject the God of Heaven who is their creator. I never was saying that people just go to Hell because they are gay. People go to Hell because they reject God and His Son. They reject the work of Christ on the Cross. I just never saw the original link. It makes me wonder how it was found by Twenty. Did he just happen to stumble on it or am I being stalked? lol

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

I grew up in southern Indiana, born in 1962.

IU- a natural fit. I became a fan when George McGinnis committed to IU in 1969, I was 7.
Pacers- natural fit. I became a fan when I saw them at the fairgrounds Coliseum in 1969. I was 7.
Reds- a natural fit. I became a fan of the Big Red machine in their first WS appearance in 1970. I was 8.

Patriots- there was no NFL team in indiana then. I was not much of a football fan, but I loosely followed the Patriots from afar, which was hard to do back then, after they drafted Sam Cunningham from USC. I was fascinated by his Rose Bowl performance. To me, Randall Cunningham will always be known as Sam's little brother. I lived in NE from 1984-87 and then from 1996-2005, so I became a diehard fan by 1996, the Super Bowl run under Parcells.

Remember, every resident of Indiana who was a fan of any NFL team before 1984, and is now a Colts fan, is a BANDWAGON JUMPER, disloyal to their original team, unless they happened to like Baltimore pre-1984.

That last paragraph may well be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read here. And that’s quite a statement.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

Yes, that was me. As I said above homosexuality is not the only sin spoken about in Romans 1. Homosexuality is a symptom of people who reject the God of Heaven who is their creator. I never was saying that people just go to Hell because they are gay. People go to Hell because they reject God and His Son. They reject the work of Christ on the Cross. I just never saw the original link. It makes me wonder how it was found by Twenty. Did he just happen to stumble on it or am I being stalked? lol

Does it matter? The fact is, you posted that. And you posted in specific reference to the LGBT bill. You clearly were saying that you believed that people who voted in favor of that bill deserved to die for it. Feel free to refute that. But it was pretty clear.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Several things wrong with your post. Jesus was not asked about homosexuality in his ministry. Therefore you would assume he agreed with the Jews view on the subject. They considered homosexuality a sin before God because this was taught in the Scriptures. Leviticus 18 for instance speaks about God's view on the subject. Now let me very clear about something. Jesus was the Son of God. What I mean by this is that He was the God of the Scriptures from Genesis to Malachi. So if Jesus was for homosexuality then He would be disagreeing with something He already said since He was God. It was not until Bethlehem that the Son of God added a human nature to His Divine one. The Apostle Paul spoke about former homosexuals and other sinners in 1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. Jesus Christ when He saved these people changed their lives. If there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual then there is also nothing wrong with adultery or idolatry. Today, people come to Christ and their lives are changed. The power of sin is being broken in their lives. A bunch of thieves, drunkards, and homosexuals are turning to the one true God who saves souls through the power of His Son's Cross.

A bunch of thieves, drunkards, and homosexuals lol. Almost sounds like a line that could have been in blazing saddles.

 

[VanPastorMan]

Does it matter? The fact is, you posted that. And you posted in specific reference to the LGBT bill. You clearly were saying that you believed that people who voted in favor of that bill deserved to die for it. Feel free to refute that. But it was pretty clear.

I was posting because the article was talking about the bill. Romans 1 would condemn it because as I said homosexuality is a symptom of people who reject the God of creation and also it says that not only do they do these things but they applaud others who do it. The bill would at odds with God's Word. In no way do I want anyone to die. I had a gay guy that worked for me at Wendys in Westfield Indiana. His name was Dennis. He did a great job for us and would stay late if we needed him to even though this was a part time job. He worked as a full time baker somewhere in the city. I wouldn't wish any ill will upon Him. In fact I told him about Jesus and offered him the salvation Jesus brings. It's because God loved him and so did I.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Several things wrong with your post. Jesus was not asked about homosexuality in his ministry. Therefore you would assume he agreed with the Jews view on the subject. They considered homosexuality a sin before God because this was taught in the Scriptures. Leviticus 18 for instance speaks about God's view on the subject. Now let me very clear about something. Jesus was the Son of God. What I mean by this is that He was the God of the Scriptures from Genesis to Malachi. So if Jesus was for homosexuality then He would be disagreeing with something He already said since He was God. It was not until Bethlehem that the Son of God added a human nature to His Divine one. The Apostle Paul spoke about former homosexuals and other sinners in 1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. Jesus Christ when He saved these people changed their lives. If there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual then there is also nothing wrong with adultery or idolatry. Today, people come to Christ and their lives are changed. The power of sin is being broken in their lives. A bunch of thieves, drunkards, and homosexuals are turning to the one true God who saves souls through the power of His Son's Cross.

There are a LOT of sins in Leviticus we no longer consider sins.

 

[82hoosier]

Next we’re going to hear about conversion therapy.

 

[VanPastorMan]

There are a LOT of sins in Leviticus we no longer consider sins.

This takes discernment and you can only have it if you consider the Bible to be the Word of God. The moral law is always intact such as the Ten Commandments. The dietary laws were binding upon Israel the Nation but were done away with in the New Testament because they were no longer binding upon the Church which consisted of Jews and Gentiles. Just take a look at the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20. Which of those would you consider to be no longer sins?

 

[VanPastorMan]

Next we’re going to hear about conversion therapy.

Only the New Birth through Faith in Jesus can convert people into what God wants them to be. You can't beat the gay out of people or starve it out of them. Only Jesus changing the heart can do it. This is in a lot of areas besides sexuality as well. 1 Corinthians 6 speaks about people who were saved out of many types of sins. Jesus changed their lives. And I will add that He still does so today.

 

[Standard Issue]

There are a LOT of sins in Leviticus we no longer consider sins.

I forget, did Leviticus say anything about being an asshole and sin?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Only the New Birth through Faith in Jesus can convert people into what God wants them to be. You can't beat the gay out of people or starve it out of them. Only Jesus changing the heart can do it. This is in a lot of areas besides sexuality as well. 1 Corinthians 6 speaks about people who were saved out of many types of sins. Jesus changed their lives. And I will add that He still does so today.

See what you think of this guy, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/johns...-the-bibles-laws-on-homosexuality-unbiblical/

 

[UncleMark]

This takes discernment and you can only have it if you consider the Bible to be the Word of God.

I love it when your type play the discernment card. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God but only how you discern it to be. When you play that card, you've surrendered.

 

[Daydreamer]

Nobody cares about the Ravens. They might have evolved/devolved(?) from the Browns but it's Cleveland that haunts Mike Brown.

"Cleveland" will be his Rosebud ....

Try making that point to a Browns fan. We don’t know or really care who Mike Brown is while we’ll go to jail just to piss on Art Modell’s grave.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

This takes discernment and you can only have it if you consider the Bible to be the Word of God. The moral law is always intact such as the Ten Commandments. The dietary laws were binding upon Israel the Nation but were done away with in the New Testament because they were no longer binding upon the Church which consisted of Jews and Gentiles. Just take a look at the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20. Which of those would you consider to be no longer sins?

Maybe you shouldn’t ever get a blood transfusion, chief.

 

[Univee2]

Try making that point to a Browns fan. We don’t know or really care who Mike Brown is while we’ll go to jail just to piss on Art Modell’s grave.

Art Modell's grave is likely eminently pissable.

Bet you don't much care for John Elway, either, correct? My kids were born in Cleveland. My son is likely the only baby booed at a baptism when I casually mentioned we named him after Elway. And this was after The Drive.

 

[Daydreamer]

Art Modell's grave is likely eminently pissable.

Bet you don't much care for John Elway, either, correct? My kids were born in Cleveland. My son is likely the only baby booed at a baptism when I casually mentioned we named him after Elway. And this was after The Drive.

I don’t really have any ill will toward Elway. It’s the Broncos franchise I’m not a fan of. I’d go go Baltimore, then Pittsburgh, with Cincy and Denver tied for a distant third on the hate list.
I wouldn’t have booed your son but I definitely believe that there are Browns fans who would do that. Hopefully in jest but you never know.

 

[Digressions]

Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

At this point, I can only assume that your favorite dessert is a turd sandwich and that you're ashamed of that fact.

In your bible quote above, how many of those sins could be used to describe Donald Trump? And how many times have you made it a point to mention he deserves death? That's your hypocrisy.

Why do you deem it necessary to condemn homosexuals and not rich men? Jesus could have said, "it's easier to fit a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a gay man to enter into the kingdom of heaven", but he didn't, did he? Is that because Jesus just assumed his readers would know homosexuality was worse than being a rich man, or was it because that was Jesus' hierarchy?

And even if you believe homosexuals are going to burn in hell- and I sincerely believe that you do- why do you think it should be government's role to not give homosexuals equal protection under the law? Is that what Jesus would do? Can you legislate someone to heaven?

How many homosexuals do we have in this country? And how many people do we have that idolize money, wealth, and the other sins mentioned in your verse? Couldn't you save more souls by preaching and advocating against those other sins?

A lot of those question marks are rhetorical. You have every right to your beliefs. I respect that right. But if you're going to condemn sins and sinners, condemn all of them, or STFU. Your hypocrisy and selective outrage is appalling and doesn't represent anything I have read or been taught about our religion (that we loosely share). And the next time you have the opportunity to talk about Mama Van's shit sandwiches, please take it. Anything would be better than your hateful and bigoted interpretation of the Bible. At least that would be my preference.

 

[VanPastorMan]

At this point, I can only assume that your favorite dessert is a turd sandwich and that you're ashamed of that fact.

In your bible quote above, how many of those sins could be used to describe Donald Trump? And how many times have you made it a point to mention he deserves death? That's your hypocrisy.

Why do you deem it necessary to condemn homosexuals and not rich men? Jesus could have said, "it's easier to fit a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a gay man to enter into the kingdom of heaven", but he didn't, did he? Is that because Jesus just assumed his readers would know homosexuality was worse than being a rich man, or was it because that was Jesus' hierarchy?

And even if you believe homosexuals are going to burn in hell- and I sincerely believe that you do- why do you think it should be government's role to not give homosexuals equal protection under the law? Is that what Jesus would do? Can you legislate someone to heaven?

How many homosexuals do we have in this country? And how many people do we have that idolize money, wealth, and the other sins mentioned in your verse? Couldn't you save more souls by preaching and advocating against those other sins?

A lot of those question marks are rhetorical. You have every right to your beliefs. I respect that right. But if you're going to condemn sins and sinners, condemn all of them, or STFU. Your hypocrisy and selective outrage is appalling and doesn't represent anything I have read or been taught about our religion (that we loosely share). And the next time you have the opportunity to talk about Mama Van's shit sandwiches, please take it. Anything would be better than your hateful and bigoted interpretation of the Bible. At least that would be my preference.

Read the verse or two after the passage you quote. "As some of you were". All sinners need to be saved from their sins. It's why Jesus died for you and me. What people have to realize is they are guilty before God. I hope you realize it too because it is the truth. You too are a sinner before God, and if you stood before the King, the Judge of the Universe and He went over your life knowing every thought, deed, and word that has come out of your mouth. Will you be declared guilty or innocent in His sight? You and I and all of us would be guilty. Homosexuals are guilty before God and it isn't just the sin of homosexuality. It's all of their sins. In this they are just like us because as Romans 3:23 says All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Read the verse or two after the passage you quote. "As some of you were". All sinners need to be saved from their sins. It's why Jesus died for you and me. What people have to realize is they are guilty before God. I hope you realize it too because it is the truth. You too are a sinner before God, and if you stood before the King, the Judge of the Universe and He went over your life knowing every thought, deed, and word that has come out of your mouth. Will you be declared guilty or innocent in His sight? You and I and all of us would be guilty. Homosexuals are guilty before God and it isn't just the sin of homosexuality. It's all of their sins. In this they are just like us because as Romans 3:23 says All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.

It’s quite convenient that in order to be “saved” I have to put up with your nonsense and put coin in your coffers, isn’t it?

 

[Sope Creek]

It’s quite convenient that in order to be “saved” I have to put up with your nonsense and put coin in your coffers, isn’t it?

When a church begins to serve its own interests and the interests of those leading it, it ceases to be a church and becomes an oppressor . . . that was the primary reason for the Reformation in the 1500s . . . .

it's not clear to me what Van understands about his situation in relation to these principles. So I'm not ready to accuse him of anything other than extreme ignorance of Reformed Christian theology . . . I can't tell that his intransigence here is intentional despite knowing better, or just plain old ignorance . . . so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and going with extreme ignorance . . . .

 

[UncleMark]

You and I and all of us would be guilty. Homosexuals are guilty before God and it isn't just the sin of homosexuality. It's all of their sins

Then why do you single them out?

 

[VanPastorMan]

It’s quite convenient that in order to be “saved” I have to put up with your nonsense and put coin in your coffers, isn’t it?

I believed the Gospel when I was 18. Didn't get a dime for it. See the bottom line is this. If you know you are guilty before God and this guilt brings eternal death, then the Gospel of Jesus Christ makes a lot more sense. You then understand why it had to be this way. A righteous man had to die for the unrighteous. This is why I call Him Savior and Lord. And I don't get a dime for calling Him that.

 

[UncleMark]

It’s quite convenient that in order to be “saved” I have to put up with your nonsense and put coin in your coffers, isn’t it?

Nobody said Eternal Salvation would be easy.

 

[VanPastorMan]

Then why do you single them out?

The article pointed out a sin that is mentioned in Romans 1. In verse 32 it says, 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
This bill is an example of verse 32. Now I pointed out before that homosexuality is not the only sin mentioned in Romans 1. Idolatry is also mentioned. If there was a pro idolatry bill proposed by the House I would use verse 32 in the exact same way.