He endorses same sex unions and wants a civil union law so that they are legally covered.

Didn’t go so far as to endorse same sex marriages via the RC church and didn’t mention anything about male priests unions or female nun unions.

As Archie Bunker would say, “You Catholics think that guy is inflammable”.

Hows he on covid masks?

I'm not Catholic but was shocked when I first saw this because I thought he was condoning same-sex marriages which would go against Catholic belief. After taking a look at it, I think it's a great idea and what should've been done a LONG time ago. If somebody wants to have a legal partner in their life so they can can be covered by family insurance or help make those tough decisions after a life-threatening incident or pass along their inheritance after they pass, they should be able to do so regardless of sexual preference. I also think this helps separate that need/issue from the desire to be "married" which is an institution that I feel should be left to those in the church.

He and the Cardinal next to him weren’t wearing upon making the announcement.

Opinions do vary but The Bible is clear on the matter.

Of course nowadays what does Scripture have at all to do with the Universal Church, one could reasonably ask ?

You're a day late and a dollar short.lol

Those Christians sure are a confusing lot.

Just a day late.

Look above my post.My comment was directed at Nebraska.

I guess my buddies are right.Old guys,no matter how long they've been online,they still don't know how the internet works.

Yep, I agree. I don't get it, but, hey, whatever.

“Is the pope Catholic?” Maybe not.

Just covering all the bases.

GFY
Good for you.

My relative, a devout Catholic, asked the same thing.

I don't care if you call it a union or a marriage or whatever. I want them to have the same rights afforded married couples.

The pope is a commie.

Some have said.

He definitely was a bouncer.

He's a disgrace to the Catholic faith.

I'm glad he called it a civil union; which is what it is, IMHO. That's O.K. with me if two people of the same gender want to get hitched. Long as it's called a civil union and not a marriage. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. There should be no difference in the rights regardless of which type of union it is.

I think that most of society feels that way.

The question is where Churches stands on the issue.

That’s probably where he was trying to thread the needle.

Romans 1: 25-27
25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

It says what it says. Liberal churches now allow same sex marriages and encourage perverted behavior. They try to take the words of the Bible and twist them to say they don't mean what they say but in the end, the words of the Lord will stand and perverts will pay the price.

So what if you have a legal union with a same sex person but it's an asexual relationship? A civil union does not require that you pluck, nor does it prevent you from plucking the opposite sex. That's where you twist privacy against them. The government is not even allowed to ask.

The pope is a Jesuit. They are the most radical of all Catholic orders.He is the first pope selected from the Jesuit order.

They run hundreds of learning institutions around the world.Forham,one of the most Communist of American universities,are run by the Jesuits.They also control Georgetown University a hotbed of anti-Catholic and pro Commie propaganda.

God knows. At any rate, I'm very skeptical that any of them are asexual.

Why is the government mixed up in licensing and regulating marriage anyway? When did that start in this country? I do believe I have forebears that were married in the sense that they had a public religious ceremony but no government paperwork. Seems to me the government could just get out of marriage licensing and anyone wishing to could form a legal partnership and giving each other a limited or not limited power of attorney. The courts could step in as they do now when children have to be dealt with in the case of two parents going their separate ways or to settle the division of joint property. This health insurance problem I believe will soon go away when everybody gets Medicaid with no legal ability to pay for private medical care unless you leave the country. This way you could partner with and live with whomever you choose and marriage would be the for a church to deal with and leave the rest of us out of it.

I don't have a problem with two Sodomites making a legal contract over issues pertaining to them living together. This is the way they should have gone instead of "gay marriage".

Problem is they don't want rights which unions would have solved but "equality" and that dog ain't gonna hunt.

What I have a problem with is them being in a legal position to force a church and a pastor to go through the sham of "marrying" them because it is impossible for two Sodomites to participate in a Christian marriage.....that is an abomination. It has either gone that way or will in the future. Everyone who has a hard on for "separation of church and state" should agree.

The institutional Roman Catholic Church has been under enemy control since the elevation of John XXIII to the Pontificate in 1958. He was placed on the throne via coup d'état. The last real Roman Catholic Pope was Pius the XII. They've all been antipopes since then.

Roman Catholic Orders, as found within the Novus Ordo, are not even valid any longer, as the ordination process has been altered since the 1960s intentionally so as to be invalid. If the institutional Roman Catholic Church is ever again to be legitimate, they will need to start getting their ordinations done by Traditional Catholic Bishops from the lines of bishops who disconnected themselves from the Novus Ordo after Vatican II, or by Eastern Orthodox Bishops.

Totally agree, just leave them be.

Face it, if a same sex couple had 1,000 acres of land that nobody hunted and one got the invite....few would probably say no.

the pope is a communist. in one pic he is getting his orders from the satanic bolshevik jews.
in the pic where he is kissing the negros feet he could be mistaken for a modern conservative

I guess ALL of his predecessors were WRONG ! for 'infallible' popes. ( DOPES )

Some, including myself, wonder if thisun is QUEER !

Boils down to Benjamins that can be made.

I don't agree with gay marriage or civil union. Wrong is always wrong.

it looks like the pope is trying to move his version of the church into current times, for better or for worser.

i wish we could scourge of urth of all the so-called kings & queens and their tax subsidies.

i wish the catholics would quit wearing their strange middle ages clothes & attire.

i wish the snake handlers would be more careful, and fewer bitten.

is it better to have sex with the same gender, or no sex at all?

if i am king for a day, i want the Codes in my possession.

The idea that marriage affords anyone "rights", or that the government can grant or deny said "rights" is an example of the ignorance that has destroyed America. You should think more clearly about the words you use, Paul, instead of just spouting ridiculous talking points. You aren't a stupid man. It doesn't do you justice to sound so ignorant.

What does marriage “afford” then?

God judges entire countries, not just people. This country is fallen into gross sin with queer marriages and abortion. Judgement is coming. I can't even guess when. His time isn't our time. When God was talking to Abraham before the Israelites went to Egypt, he said the Canaanites' sin wasn't full yet. God gave them another 500 years to clean up their act before he sent in 2 million Jews to deal with them. He gave Rome until 500AD before he destroyed them. He gave Israel a couple centuries before he sent in the Assyrians and the Babylonians to deal with them, then another 400 years before he let Rome settle them for 2 millenia. He does give them plenty of warning, though. Each of those countries killed God's messengers. It's coming here sooner or later.

These were just off the cuff remarks that don't even rate as teaching. They are simply his personal opinion. For you or I, it's OK to hold an opinion that is different from revelation. We just have to be humble enough to say "God, I don't understand that, I don't agree with it, but I'm going to live by your word anyway".

On the other hand, you'd think the Cardinals could find a Pope who not only agreed to live in conformity to God's will even if he doesn't agree with it, you'd think they could have found a Pope who agreed with all of God's teachings. I mean, seriously, the Jesuits in times past were the bulldogs of faith who gave up everything to fulfill God's will.

Here is the genuine Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Not because a Pope wrote it, but because it's the teaching God gave us. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/..._doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

You know not of what you speak.

Careful of your pronouncements on others’ ignorance while showing your own,

In your own words, “you should think more clearly about the words you use”.

Excellent post, Tyrone.

Yep.

https://abc7ny.com/health/covid-updates-pope-francis-mask-controversy/7210988/

You pretty much can without dignifying sodomy. For one, power of attorney. Inheritance can be covered by a will. Family insurance?! I don't really get that, seems like you should have a family for that. The entire idea of law is to promote general welfare, something sodomy wrecks.

As for the rest of your post...What, Freedom? What governments going to get behind a crazy idea like that?

Will wait for someone to answer that one.

DF

How good is the “general welfare” of families when over 50% of first marriages end in divorce, and an even greater percentage of second marriages end in divorce, and an even still greater percentage of third marriages end in divorce...? And NONE of those failures has anything to do with “dignifying sodomy.” Giving these people the ability to provide for their “general welfare” in the ways that Nebraska mentioned above, while not infringing on your “general welfare” in any way whatsoever, seems right.

"Universal Church"?

By that, do you mean Islam?

The Bibles only has a bit little bit to do with that. About 1/3 of the Koran was lifted from in, and even less of the Hadiths.

So what are they missing out on? If we want limited government why is anyone treated any different by our government? If they share a home and one dies the other can assume ownership ahead of time by the two of them having a quit claim deed made. Tax breaks? Why not get the government out of taxing based on being married. They are so many ways for a same sex couple to assure themselves of the kind of future they want and leave the institution of marriage alone. In the long run it's got nothing to do with that though but more to do with destroying the family unit and anything that is decent.

The Bible is also clear on the matters of lying, cheating, fraud, adultery, pride, drunkenness, envy, wrath, sloth, greed, gluttony, lust, and a host of other sins. But NONE of em’ get the attention...nor elicit the emotion...that homosexuality does. Sin is sin in God’s eyes. One persons lies are no worse than one persons drunkenness or another’s sexual immorality. Sexual sin ‘is’ mentioned as being different than other sins...NOT because it’s worse to God...but because when you sin sexually you hurt yourself deeply - it stays with you throughout your life - it’s worse for you. Do churches who take such a staunch stand against homosexuality...ANY of em’...take an equivalent staunch stand against ‘any’ of the other sins listed above, or the host of other sins...? Their pews are full of sinners - adulterers, drunks, tax cheats, gluttons, men who beat their wives and/or kids, greedy people, fraudsters, etc...., but God forbid there’s a homosexual sittin’ in one of those pews. Jesus’ harshest words were reserved for hypocrites.

I tolja bout dis yestiddy

There's something else:
1 Cor 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

Sexual sin, by being against your own body, is against the Holy Spirit. You don't mess with the HS. The only sin that can't be forgiven is against Him. Illicit sex isn't the unforgivable sin, of course, but the point is that it's against the HS and that's powerful stuff.

There are no levels of sin.

Strongly disagree.

A man gets too much change given back, knows it yet walks away.

A man committed heinous acts against and upon a child then murders the child to ostensibly hide the acts.

In the eyes of man, yes. In the eyes of God, no.

You know this, how?

The way to have someone get what they want is a little at a time. Perfect example of moving everyone to accept LBGQT and whatever the other letters are.. I say no to all of it. If people want to live together fine, if they want to share things fine, get a lawyer draw up a contract. Leave the Gov out of it and let the church stay out of it and go by the bible and not what one very liberal pope says..

Any opinion the pope has is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned . I don't worship the pope .

The early church was simple, meeting in peoples homes, and being persecuted. Then Emperor Constantine became a Christian, and all the old temples just changed the name on the door to Christian. Many of the old gods rituals were brought into the church, thus evolved the Catholic church. Christians didn't really go back to simple Christianity until the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant Reformation brought more freedoms and less government to the people, eventually leading to America which was founded on Protestant Christian principles. Thus we were blessed and prospered. We as Americans weren't perfect, but it eventually lead to a more free life. However with freedom comes responsibility to fight off sin and evil things. When the majority of people were Christians in America things were more civil, even with problems of racism and segregation, most people were civil. America forgetting God, has opened the door to all manner of sins, like homosexuality, divorce, adultry, children without fathers, pedophilia, stealing, riots, lootings, etc. America needs to turn back to God or we will have more and worse problems.

Without a moral compass, the only way to have order is by force, thus you see how Communism, Facism, and Socialism take root. And the order is forced by the elitists few, like the social media giants, the Democrat (communist) party, and big government bureaucracies.

A viewpoint:

A sin might be seen as a marble.... a little sin like telling a lie....., it might be a cantaloupe, a bigger sin like robbery..... it might be a basketball, a more vicious sin like murder. All sin .... but coming in different sizes and having different effects.

But, it is a black marble of sin.... a black cantaloupe or and a black basketball.

All sin, big and small is all black.

I go to church.

That’s not a whole lot different than me saying that I go to Home Depot or I know a minister, two priests and a nun.

No slam meant.

No argument there.

What does The Book advise about blasphemy?

Good point grand wizard. Blacks can't be christians and should not allowed in churches.

The follow-on thought: At judgment day, one standing before God can be seen as holding a ball.... representing all,the sins and misdeeds of that one’s life. Some are standing there with little black balls and some are there with huge black balls.

The one with a little ball might think...... “Ok, I have only a little black ball and look at the others with very large black balls” ....

Then they find that God is ..... so-to-speak.... judging not on the size of the black balls of sin, but on the color of the balls.

It is a no go if your ball is black.

How about pipple an dawgs?

Heh !

I guess Ole roman warrior forgot about the RC Church refusing to open their books to the Jews about circa WW 2 and possibly finding Jewish assets “secured “ by the Church during that era.

You left out the matters of repentance and salvation before judgement.

Jus sayin.

Then why is there a sin that can't be forgiven?

Epstein Island?

Politics has taken over religion, religion is now politics.
Like it hasnt ever happened.....

Of course if there's enough public sentiment to throw certain peoples asses in an oven, all is golden.

The government basing taxation on marital status or a relationship with a beach ball in most conservatives eyes should be a cart before horse idea to begin with.

Hebrews 10:28-29
How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

2 Peter 2:20-22
For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them.

James 3:1-2
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment.

The Old Testament.. The Law.. was specific about homosexuality.

If man 'lie' with man they shall be put to death. (normally stoning to death.
If woman 'lie' with woman they shall be put to death (^^ ^^ ).

One place God said, "There shall be no sodomite in Israel"
*** Why were Sodom & Gomorrah destroyed ? *** Homosexuality.

**** I don't have time to look those up but I can and will, If someone want to read it for themself
That is Old Testament AND Rock Chuck is spot one in the New Testament. I read it myself.






Man's wishes and wisdom have been 'SUBSTITUTED' for God's Word.

666, the number of a man, who can supposedly modify God's word.

Yes....but...... two judgments..... the great throne judgment and the Bema seat...... different judgments, different folks and different criteria for the judgments.

"One place God said, "There shall be no sodomite in Israel"
*** Why were Sodom & Gomorrah destroyed ? *** Homosexuality."

Some would say there are homos in Israel. God is not referring to the nation of Israel here, however.
Remember, HE said all of Israel will be saved. We know all those people in Israel wont be saved because not all of them accept JESUS CHRIST as SAVIOUR. HE refers to HIS believers as Israel. All of those are who will be saved.

The Old Testament.. The Law.. was also specific about adultery, a woman not being a virgin on the night of her wedding, taking God’s name in vain, and rebelling against one’s parents...ALL of which required violators to be put to death.

It’s likely pointless to try and list sins according to their degree of seriousness. “For the wages of sin is death...” (Romans 6:23), applies to ALL sin, whether in thought, word, or deed. In ‘that’ sense, all sins are equal in that they ALL separate us from God.

Yes, He was. The 'context" is about the NOT condoning SODOMY w/in the Nation of Israel

Context..... so many TWIST things together OUT of context.

Telling your wife she doesn't look fat in that dress is the same as raping an murdering your own daughter?

That's non-sense.

”In ‘that’ sense, all sins are equal in that they ALL separate us from God.” Lying is a sin, and separates us from God. Murder is a sin, and separates us from God. In ‘that’ context, both of those sins separate us from God. Sin separates us from God. Period. ‘That’ is the point.

I would have to disagree with that, my friend.
If a grandma is babysitting the grandkids on a Saturday night and a drug crazed dimocrap is breaking in and she has the kids run and hide and he gets in and asks if there is anyone else in the house and she says there isnt, has she sinned by lying?

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

I hear ya’. And I know where you’re comin’ from. MOST lies are done for self advancement, greed, or other selfish reasons, etc., but some ‘are’ done at least with the intention of protecting others, their reputations or physical selves. I think our Creator knows what’s in our hearts, and He knows our motivations.

I'm no authority on the Bible. What does scripture say about a legal civil union?

What sin is that?

sin against the Holy Spirit

I was speaking of and on the same sex marriage issues. That’s pretty clear in Scripture and of the acts leading to same sex marriage.

Apologies if I misled.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Mt 12:31: Therefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Good Job J G. !!
There it is !

JG

For someone who ? supposedly heads ? the “Christian Catholic” church
the DOPE doesn’t know much about the Bible ! !

And he’s not the only leader of “supposedly” christian “ churches”.

SAD

REPREHENSIBLE

MORONIC !!

Not all but many have adopted the credo, “A changing church for a changing world”.

No rudder on their ships and their Captains are AWOL. They’re simply set adrift.

The United Methodist Church is not so pure in this regard.

The baby outgrew the mama there. Looking like they will have a split.

If that is what it takes.

Read that a while back, Wabi. The movement to split is driven by the Traditionalists within the UMC.

A split is the answer to many of the problems within Christian Churches. But with properties and structures owned by the Diocese, ergo, Roman Catholic and Episcopal, the fight comes down to a real estate money war which is why those members just tend to seek spirituality elsewhere.

Complex in our case, we are merging with the Presbyterian church.

The Pope kicked God to the curb 50 years ago when he accepted Karl Marx as his savior.

If you trust your Gods will why would you need
to lie when there are other options?
... by lying to advance one's own selfish will
(over God's) one fails miserably on two counts.

When are hypocrite christians going to stop
bullchitting the world when simple cold fact is
they prefer Glock and lies over honesty and God.




So when there's a home invader and one might
need God the most, there are christians who will
do something to separate themselves from God.

You need to read this.
https://media.ascensionpress.com/20...tween-ceremonial-judicial-and-moral-law/

Preach it Brother Starman !!!!

The Old Testament (referred to by jwall) says what it says. Are you denying that...? Specifically, are you denying that adultery, a woman not being a virgin on the night of her wedding, taking God’s name in vain, and rebelling against one’s parents are NOT punishable by death as the Old Testament says they are...just as it says that homosexuality is punishable by death...?

Just one in a LONG list of DENYERS of God's Word.

Rom 3:.. What if some do not believe, does that make the faith of God vain?

God forbid. Let God be true but every man a LIAR.

jaguartx,
Regarding our discourse on this topic, Egyptian midwives did lie to Pharoah in order to save male Hebrew babies. And God dealt well with those midwives.

God, if one exists, could clear up all matters of theology in an instant.

What we do have is human belief, what people say, what people argue over.....and have for centuries, meanwhile living their lives according to their own values.

the same legal means of wealth protection, transfer, can be done by other legal avenues such as corporations in there various forms, foundations etc.

to use a term civil marriage as a legal context is pure chicken [bleep].

same sex situations already have these avenues open to them


it's the age old battle of separation of church and state.

Etoh, you’re exactly right but the bigger outstanding issue for them is health insurance especially if they work for a company or institution that provides health insurance.

That’s the crux of what the Pope was referring to with, what he called, “need for civil law to cover them as in a family/dependent unit“, thus affording the same sexers with access to that need.

Like you and others have pointed out, all the rest is available to anyone.

I’ve gotta say, like it or not, the man made quite a bold proclamation for someone in his position.

"The Lord works in mysterious ways"

thats a problem with health care system not the church-state argument.

bold but no where near "kill them all and let God sort them out"

Some disingenuous ‘Christians’ cherry-pick which sins they are gonna take a stand against. If one is prejudiced, or despises, or hates someone else for whatever reason...that's their business. Especially when they're honest enough to admit that that's what it is. At least they're honest about it. Some disingenuous 'Christians' use the Bible to justify their prejudice and hatred of certain others...hidin' behind the shield of Christianity and doin' the exact opposite of what Jesus Himself would do...and taught.

We needed a Christian thread.

Bible, Koran or Torah, what you described is simply ‘the human condition ‘.

This ain’t peculiar only to Chr*stians.

Used to have a thread called “ Chr*st at The Campfire “.

You ain’t never seen such vitriol and bitch slappin going on.

Rick wisely shut it down.

I agree. God will not be mocked.

I'll paraphrase Bobby Bare, "May God Bless America Again".

Canada as well.

Catholics are Christians.

Since all sin is equivalent, all laws should have the same penalty, 5 Hail Mary's, a 25 dollar fine, followed by death by stoning.

Well,,,,if you're working both sides of the border,,,,
Grins

No country was ever more blessed with a good neighbor than we are by having Canada as one.

DBT, I did not say they are not.

DBT, I did not say they are not.

Damn, you made me laugh out loud !

lol

I’ve heard about that. Seems like there’s no problem for “such vitriol and bitch slappin going on” to occur on the Hunter’s Campfire or other forums here though.

All sins are equivalent ’in the sense’ that they ALL separate us from God. ’That’ is the point that has been made.

Indeed, "Sin separates man from God"

Just an aside concerning the issue of separation of church and state issue I see alluded to here and there. Most have no idea what the Founding Fathers’ wanted to prevent with that concept. It was what Constantine formed in the 4th century when as emperor he joined the Roman church with the empire, making them co-extensive, and linked irrevocably by infant baptism. He wanted a universal (small “c” catholic) church so the Roman Church became the Roman Catholic Church.

You were born into the empire and Christianity simultaneously by the sacrament of infant baptism. Of course this greatly diluted true Christianity by immediately including what was mostly a pagan Roman Empire. But to the point of the Founders, from that point through the Reformation and at many points in between, the church used the state as a tool to suppress and kill “heretics” and dissenters. The church ruled through and via the state.

We’ve been hoodwinked by the humanist culture for sixty years that separation means taking prayer and scripture out of public education, the Ten Commandments off of court house walls, and crosses that are landmarks down; no praying in the public square, or at sporting events, and so forth.

Instead of the church being strong and informing the culture, the culture has informed and cowed the church which for the most part during our lives, has been week. And if it had been strong, the subject of this thread wouldn’t be that much of an issue.

The founders didn’t want Christianity out of the state; in fact, they almost all shared the sentiment that a republic couldn’t stand without a moral (emanating from religion) publi. They just didn’t want Christianity or any religion to control the state and use it to their own end.

I said it because some folks don't think so....it wasn't aimed at you. I should have been clearer.

DBT, what makes you think they are Christians? Watch what the do, not what they say.

Catholics believe in Jesus as the saviour.

Like saying G-dam or G-dammit or cursing at God when you're angry/sad/upset??

All organized religions will turn against the Word, just as they did to crucify JESUS. They are now in the process of crucifying HIM again, by their words and deeds.

Those are well covered in the 10 Commandments.

Blasphemy towards the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable.

Big difference.

Good Points G De.

I think ALSO the Founding Fathers had come out of England's control WHICH included the ?church?
They did NOT want any similitude of Kingship (Queenship) or Religious CONTROL !!

Separation of powers so to speak - Government / Religion.

I agree that they did NOT want Christianity OUT of the state ! For many years Congress opened sessions with PRAYER!
Many will DENY that but it's a Matter of RECORD.

Reference to God & His Word are many in US History. ?? maybe why History has NOT been taught. ??

What our young people have NOT been taught is the REASON so many things today are Protested.
They DON'T know what they don't know.

Shame ! Shame!

I'll just take that as a yes. So, if that's the case, am I screwed when it comes to going to heaven?

Strongly disagree, Brother Jag.

“They” are convicting their own souls thus crucifying themselves via their very own words and their actions.

He was crucified - once. - for us, not twice.

That’s presently in your own hands and your own control.

Old Toot, I'm tired and I feel like we're dancing around this question. I give up.....

Speak clearly and ask specifically what you want to know.

Iirc, our Founders never mentiomed separation of church and state. They provided govt not to interfere with church, not vice versa. In fact, for decades there were legal requirements people who ran for office had to profess a religious belief in God if not Jesus.

The had no idea muzzies and witches would come to take advantage of our religious freedoms as they never considered muzzies and their god were a real religion, which, btw, they are more a political consort.

Thats why our founders came up with swearing an oath on the Holy Bible to take office or testify in court.
To them, to have freedom of religion meant being able to worship God and Jesus as one wished. They provided no options for goat fuggers or witch worshippers. Satans tares provided that.

Or to not worship any Entity at all.

jag & O T

Our "A C L U" has TAKEN advantage of our freedoms and made us SLAVES to them.
And to take ADVANTAGE of us.

That’s right I think, though the phrase was attributed to Jefferson wrongly, IIRC. But they were aware of the concept — freedom of and from religion — which provide the environment in which Christianity flourished such that de Tocqueville thought it — rightly — the strength and uniqueness of America.

If I may...
To me...Nope. Not at all. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is only committed when a person believes Jesus had a demon and by the power of the devil He performed His miracles. If you haven’t believed that, and said such, you have ‘not’ committed unforgivable sin...and you’re not screwed when it comes to going to Heaven. Just look at Mark 3:22-30:

And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.” So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” He said this because they were saying, “He has an evil spirit.”

Those guys committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit when they believed and said Jesus had a demon and by the power of the devil he drove out demons. That is what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is. The only ones Jesus ever said committed unforgivable sin were the ones saying Jesus had an evil spirit and by the power of the devil He was driving out demons.

They all separate you from God equally?
With such trivial "sins" creating this alleged separation how is everyone not always separated from God?

The Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

What does that have to do with "taking prayer and scripture out of public education, the Ten Commandments off of court house walls, and crosses that are landmarks down; no praying in the public square, or at sporting events, and so forth."

Nothing.

Redux

That’s was the point.

They don’t separate us from God’s love at all. NOTHING can do that to a believer. But it does affect our relationship with our Creator...the separation is relationally...for a believer. I don’t know if there are degrees to that separation.

NO that is NOT the unpardonable sin! What you are talking about is called taking the name of the Lord in vain. If you are already a Christian, ask the Lord to forgive you for it, receive your forgiveness and quit doing it! If you do it again, repeat the process.

If you are not a believer that is what is going to make you "screwed" when it comes to going to heaven. Most people think that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell. That is what religions teaches. The Gospel teaches that forgiven people go to heaven and unforgiven people go to hell. You get forgiven by asking Jesus to forgive you and accepting his death on the cross as having paid the penalty for your sins. You stay unforgiven by NOT accepting what Jesus did on the cross and NOT believing his testimony that he is the Son of God. There is your real unpardonable sin.

I try to avoid these kind of discussion in this secular format. But seeing the way your question was left hanging I had to say something.

Shoot me a PM if you need to.

Yer fuggked.

On a side note, maybe a tangent even...
We often hear of the political controversies about the public displays of the Ten Commandments, especially in government buildings. What do you think about public displays, especially in government buildings...instead of the Ten Commandments...of the Sermon on the Mount, or the One Commandment - “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one
another.” - John 13:34.....?

Catholic Catechism explicitly states that there
is no sin, no matter how serious, that cannot be
forgiven, .. for to suggest otherwise challenges
God’s omnipotence.

Yet many who identify as christian would disagree
re: blasphem of the holy spirit...

What does a 'real' Christian believe?

Does anyone really care what the pope says? He is human like the rest of us. The current one seems to be a liberal douche bag. The next one may not be. Doesnt change whats right and wrong. Just humans making dumb political statements. Screw the current one

That's not the unforgivable sin as defined in Mark 3. Jesus had cast out some demons and the pharisees said he did it using Satan's power. Jesus refuted that and said that their sin of calling the Holy Spirit evil would not be forgiven. He finishes off with this:

Mark 3:29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
30 He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."

That's completely different than dying without salvation.

Thank you Antlers.

Thank you as well Rock Chuck. I've read a lot of the bible and it has some incredible wisdom but some of it sounds pretty outlandish to me so I always appreciate when someone can translate what I think it says to what it actually says.

RJY66,
I’ve seen you post this before; I saved it. Good stuff:
“Good people don't go to heaven and bad people don't go to hell. Forgiven people go to heaven. Unforgiven people go to hell.”

I'm denying that you have any understanding of the Bible beyond the level of a 10 year old.

But then you go on to extrapolate from there. You read into what isn't there. You are simply disingenuous. You purposely ignore the degree of separation just to be argumentative.

He’s an Obama plant.

Hope the COVID finds him.

If you don't know that then, apparently, you either don't believe in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ or you don't understand relationships.

lol

It’s OK with me for you to believe whatever you choose.

Did you even bother to read the article I posted for you?

I did. And NOTHING in that article negated what I said, which prompted your response with the article reference in the first place.

Does Jesus approve of mysteriously withdrawing sales of glossy SS Single Sixes ?

lol

In my eyes, that’s the finest lookin’ Ruger New Model Super Single-Six Convertible .22 rimfire there is.

That's a common error. I've heard sermons preached on how the unforgivable sin is dying without salvation. Calling the HS evil is in both Mathew and in the passage I quoted so I don't know how a minister who's supposed to be trained in the scripture could miss it. The problem is defining the word blasphemy. It seems to have several definitions. However, Mk 3 clarifies it's definition for that purpose.

No he did not. It was an abomination, punishable by stoning.

lol

‘Only’ if you think we’re still under the Law.

Well, the two reference to the SS Single Sixes I'm aware of are both in the New Testament.

Luke:
22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no Ruger Single Six, let him sell his garment, and buy one in Stainless Steel.

And in John we have:

18:10 Then Simon Peter having a Ruger Single Six in Stainless Steel, drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, cleanly removing his right ear lobe. The Priest stopped cold in his tracks as Peter thumbed the hammer and pointed the Ruger Single Six in Stainless Steel at the priests forehead. The Priest said his final prayer and prepared to meet God. All know Peter never missed, for he was imbued with the Holy Spirit.
18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy Ruger Single Six in Stainless Steel, into the holster, you only have four rounds left and there's 40 of them. Besides, this is all part of a plan, and I can't have you screwing it up: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

laffin’

...And let the one who has no Ruger New Model Super Single-Six Convertible .22 rimfire sell his cloak and buy one. - Luke 22:36

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
I have cried out for years that context is vital, and especially this context, is vital to the understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Heard many a person attempt to explain blasphemy of the Holy Spirit without the context of this writ. Jesus, as with all things, makes it easy to understand exactly what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is. If one just reads it Scripture interprets Scripture every time. When you step outside how Jesus explains it here all sorts of interpretations, speculations and theories develop. None of which are what Jesus said.

antlers,
you said it well when you said,
"Those guys committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit whe,n they believed and said Jesus had a demon and by the power of the devil he drove out demons. That is what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is. The only ones Jesus ever said committed unforgivable sin were the ones saying Jesus had an evil spirit and by the power of the devil He was driving out demons"
Thanks
Jim

seek and you will find...just not here

Been crowing for 35 damn years at what I see coming..........................."hello, have you met my wife? she's ten." people DID NOT wake up! too late now.

If you commit that sin, you'll be doing it intentionally. You'll know what you're saying and it will be held against you forever. You don't have to worry about doing it by accident.

Rock Chuck
Good observation.

The failures aren't part & parcel of virtue. The fact that people don't live up to the virtue being promoted in no way invalidates the attempt to promote virtue.
Promoting vice does not make that vice into a virtue.

If you really want to make the ignorant argument that people's failures to live up to the ideal invalidate the ideal, we could pretend that gay "marriage" is a virtue and start comparing divorce rates, domestic violence numbers and infidelity, etc with real marriages. You won't like the numbers though, because sodomy loses on every count.

Another erroneous assumption that you make is that engaging in vice is somehow in the "general welfare" of homosexuals. Christ didn't condemn sodomy for just some people, He condemned it for everyone.

Jesus did say that not one jot or tittle of the old law has passed away.
Obviously you disagree with Christ.

You don't even have a clue what he was talking about.

If he could produce a magic basket of bread to
feed the multitude, 40 rounds from a wheelgun
would be child's play..

When Jesus descended to Hades [Sheol in Hebrew] ,
(Apostles creed: "He descended into hell")
all the dead were there, including the righteous.

Sounds like Jesus visited a hell unlike
the one christians believe in.

No He didn’t. He said “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Jesus ‘fulfilled’ it (the law), now it’s over and done with. Jesus came to fulfill all that was written in the Law and the Prophets. All of it was pointing to Him. He accomplished what the Law required. All of the promises of God in the Law and the Prophets have been fulfilled in Jesus. The law was kept perfectly by Jesus. And all of its penalties against God’s sinful people were poured out on Jesus. Therefore, the Law is now manifestly NOT the path to righteousness; Jesus is. The ultimate goal of the Law is that we would look to Jesus, ‘not’ law-keeping, for our righteousness. When Jesus said ”It is finished”, He meant it. Apostle Paul meant it too when he said “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." lol

On the contrary.lol some more

Jesus’ world was rife with injustice, yet the Gospels record only one instance of what we have come to know as “righteous anger” on the part of Jesus.

What explains the venomous, diffuse distemper of some ‘Christians’...? Is their vitriol the mark of a disciple...?

You boys gonna make me post an image of The Cross?
Love one another!

Wabigoon,

You opposed my return.

You are no Christian.

if so, there are many disciples here

what we've got here or so it appears is that a system of beliefs are becoming under pressure, maybe attack, and are having troubles adjusting but haven't given up?

that is, gov't ordered churches to close because science said it must happen for us to remain safer than otherwise. most churches complied although grudgingly.

one wonders why there wasn't a grand outpouring of conventions, assemblies or group meetings to chastise the disease and whomever brought it?

no one placed curses on china for unleashing a disease that was actively killing off old folks, their caretakers and the first responders.

in fact in my interpretation they bowed down to elected gov't (mammon??), and let syria be taken over by the muslims.

pretty weak, but they are in the system, trying to maintain the hierarchy, and must not risk rocking the boat.

That’s a lengthy response, NONE of which negated the FACTS that I posted above it.

Some ‘Christians’ sure do come across as being quite angry...do they represent Jesus in a way that draws people from the onlooking world to Jesus...? Isn’t something off-kilter about such angry ‘Christians’...?

The way you read it, murder is now OK, along with every other sin. If that is true, why will there be the particular and general judgments?

For that matter, why would we bother with civil law?

Angry? That's not me, that must be your feelings of guilt. I do believe you have guilt issues. There's some behavior you are refusing to address.

BTW, who said "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"?

Jesus wrapped up the law nicely in what we now know as the Golden Rule.

The Jim sez.....he gives notteth two schits what thyne Pope sayeth.

That also goes for the resteth of thyne religious nutteths.

Hey! Big James! Some of us Jesus freaks are regular guys!

I appreciate the regular freaks Richard.

The super freaks on the other hand.....

To be serious Jim. This is no small part if "IT"
"Love your neighbor as yourself".

My roman brothers have my sympathy with regard to the antichrist now claiming to be pope.

Civil unions and the promotion of sodomy by govt is bad enough without the leader of the romans endorsing such.

lol

You do come up with some doozies...!

still lol

Doozies on steroids even...!

So now you’re bringing the occult into the discourse...!

lol

Yes sir. Jesus’ entire ministry on earth can be summed up in that passage. And He said the Law and the Prophets (the entire Old Testament) can be summed up in that passage as well. That’s it. That’s what it’s all about. The rest is just cheap whiskey.

As it relates to the Bible, define “The rest is just cheap whiskey “.

When Jesus said what He did, there was no “the Bible”. Jesus’ discourse with the Pharisee regarding the greatest commandment...

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” [Matthew 22:35-40. NIV]

To me, the second commandment is not subordinate to the first but merely second in sequence. “Like it” means ‘just as important’ or ‘equal to’...it means you can’t have the first without the second.

All of the Old Testament (the Law and the Prophets), and all of the New Testament (Jesus entire ministry on earth)...”hang on” loving God, and showing your love for God by loving others. Period. Apostle Paul (who wrote a ‘large’ part of the New Testament) said “the ONLY thing that matters is faith expressing itself through love.”

ok, shakespearian, impressed...extra points if you can say that in latin

Oh, so you have no idea what love is.

To you, love is handing a junkie a loaded syringe.

And you are wrong about that.
This is just gaslighting on your part. You do not have much regard for anyone.

lol
still lolNo I’m not. smh

Some angry and hypocritical ‘Christians’ likely push more people away from Jesus than Satan himself does.

#JesusSaves

Read “The History of The Bible “ by Mark Taylor and you may understand where I’m coming from with the simple question that I asked you.

Yes, yes you do.
Apologizing for sodomy and then gaslighting everyone trying to say you didn't or that somehow the plain teachings of Christ don't mean what they say. Pathetic! Thank God you aren't a leader.

I understood the simple question that you asked; and I provided a simple answer that was quite clear.

Okay.
Thanks

Nebraska posted “I think it's a great idea and what should've been done a LONG time ago. If somebody wants to have a legal partner in their life so they can can be covered by family insurance or help make those tough decisions after a life-threatening incident or pass along their inheritance after they pass, they should be able to do so regardless of sexual preference.” I AGREE WITH WHAT NEBRASKA SAID.Cherry-pick much...? Jesus clearly stated what His Greatest Commandments are. They ‘outweigh’ everything else.Some ‘Christians’ get very angry when others don’t ‘hate’ like they do.

You are the angry one here.

The angry one who has no idea what love means. The angry one who refuses to acknowledge that God wants our worship.

This isn't the first time you've come out in support of sodomy and then made stupid, Hitchens-like references to shellfish, etc.

lol
still lol
smh

He doesn’t want ‘hate’ from His followers.
I AGREE WITH WHAT NEBRASKA SAID. If ‘you’ believe that’s ‘supporting sodomy’ that’s your prerogative. Whatever you choose to believe is fine with me. Some ‘Christians’ cherry-pick one “abomination” from the Old Testament and use it to justify their hate, and completely ignore or disregard ‘all’ of the other “abominations” in the Old Testament...and when that’s pointed out...they get mad. The Pharisees also got mad when Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy.

There you go again! More Hitchens! Nobody ever said that hetero sodomy, theft, etc wasn't bad, but you make gross generalizations and accusations just like that uncharitable Atheist.

BTW, the rest of the Bible isn't fluff - it's the account of previous covenants (testaments, agreements, contracts between God and man), what was required of each party to those covenants, plus teaching on what love is and how God wants to be worshiped. The New Covenant isn't a one-way agreement, it has requirements for worship and behavior too, just like the previous covenants. When Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant (Which was what? About the 4th covenant in the OT?) it simply meant that the laws pertaining to the Jerusalem-based temple worship were fulfilled and that a new set of requirements for worship were put in place. Does "Do this in remembrance of me" ring any bells? Instead of animal sacrifice for the atonement of sins, God put in place the sacrifice of the Eucharist, AKA the Sacrifice of the Mass along with the sacrament of penance, etc. The old, timeless rules of morality are still in place.

You practice a ‘religion’...just like the Pharisees practiced a ‘religion’. Rules and regulations. There’s no saving power in the sacraments. The Jewish religious leaders were thoroughly educated, highly trained, and well versed in their ‘religion’. And they practiced a graceless and hypocritical religion. Jesus criticized them for it. This is what happens when championing religious rules and religious regulations becomes more important than the people that these things were designed to serve and benefit. Modern day Pharisees are the same as the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. Following Jesus isn’t a ‘religion’...it’s a way of life. Some angry ‘Christians’ seem to be mad because they can’t burn heretics at the stake nowadays.

It wasn't until the Vatican council of 1964,
that the RCC proclaimed they no longer
blamed Jews past and present for deicide.

You can't blame the Jews for what was destined to happen, not only destined, but according to the story: planned to happen from the beginning.

Friends,

And then, it's homilies, like this one by Father Ed Meek, that make me proud to be a Roman Catholic. May God Bless you all.

Steve

The Law...as Jesus and Apostle Paul BOTH said...is no more. It is over. All of it. Period. God’s covenant with Israel was temporary and had a pre-planned end. Jesus said He came to ‘fulfill’ the law...to bring it to a designated end. He didn’t come to abolish - as in destroy - the validity of it...or to undermine the credibility of it...He came to bring it to a pre-planned, designated end. God set a timer when He established His covenant with Israel...and the time had run out. God’s conditional, temporary covenant with Israel was coming to an end...the law was being fulfilled through Jesus.
A lot of rules and practices and rituals and instructions from the Old Testament are no longer practiced, not because they were wrong, but because they were pointing forward to when Jesus would fulfill them...and end them. He didn’t abolish them, He just made them obsolete. If you had a HUGE debt that you owed, and someone came along and paid off your debt, the obligation would be fulfilled...and the burden of fulfilling that obligation would be removed as well. Jesus fulfilled — as in ended — the necessity of the Jewish law. He didn’t abolish the law by fulfilling it...He just made it obsolete by fulfilling it.
Jesus said that nothing in the law would “disappear” until everything was “accomplished.” It ‘was’ accomplished, and then the law began to disappear. Jews throughout the Roman world started abandoning strict adherence to the law to follow the resurrected Jesus. The transition came to an abrupt end on August 6 in AD70. Ancient Judaism ended, signaled by the temple’s destruction...as Jesus predicted. The Old Covenant wasn’t needed anymore...it had been fulfilled and replaced with a new, and better, covenant.
I don’t equate the fulfilled-and-now-obsolete old covenant with Jesus’ New Covenant. At all. God clearly separated the two.

Good luck explaining that to Mel Gibson.

It’s a financial decision. Catholic baptisms are down 34%. Declining membership leads to declining revenue. The pope decided that money is more important than following scripture.

It’s the same reason priests weren’t allowed to marry. In the early days priests came from wealthy families. The Catholic Church didn’t want heirs to take money that would otherwise go to the church.

The words say that Jesus did not come to abolish the law. If it is said that by 'fulfilling' the law he in effect abolished the law, there is a contradiction.

If the Law were a homework assignment, Jesus was completing it. If the law were a speech, Jesus was concluding it. If the law were a plane, Jesus was landing it. You don’t abolish a homework assignment by completing it; you don’t abolish a speech by concluding it; and you don’t abolish a plane by landing it. When Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law, He was saying God’s conditional, temporary covenant with Israel was coming to an end...the intended-from-the-beginning end. It was completed, it was concluded, it was landed.
“It is finished.” Jesus’ famous last words from the cross. Jesus wasn’t finished...as His disheartened followers would soon discover. But the Law was. In His final moments, He was announcing that the covenant He came to fulfill was at last fulfilled. A New Covenant, a better covenant, a broader covenant was being established...through the shedding of His blood...between God and all who would choose to participate.

Spot on! Antlers. (Did your mother name you Antlers?) I'm Richard.

The story is not finished. All has not been fulfilled. The long awaited return of Jesus in power and glory has yet to happen. And if Jesus said that he had not come to abolish the law, the law cannot have been abolished by his life or ministry.

*The Law*...as Jesus Himself said, IS finished. I believe Him. When someone can predict His own death and resurrection, and pull it off...I’m gonna go with whatever He says.

You guys understand why no one trusts the CDC, WHO and other "authorities" anymore, right?

Equivocation. 'It is finished' refers to his sacrifice, not the law...which, according the words attributed to him, he had not come to abolish.

Nope. Jesus didn’t use ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing Himself, as you assert.
Nope. It refers to the the intended-from-the-beginning completion...fulfillment...of the Law.Completing is not abolishing. Fulfilling is not abolishing.

It wasn't predicted, it was planned and implemented
in every detail all along.

and the 'Hell' you and other christians describe
differs from the one Jesus controls and visited.
... Why is that so?

approaching 2000 yrs of christians conveniently
making things up as they go...

Some of you could teach seminary, me, I simply Believe on The Lord Jesus Christ.

It was predicted. As was the destruction of the temple, as was John the Baptist, and as was Jesus’ birth. All were predicted, all happened. God ‘planning and implementing‘ them doesn’t in any way negate that.Please quote ‘my description of hell’ that you’re referring to.

Why would a God need to predict what he himself planned and implemented?

If you plan something, and then you announce ahead of time that you’re gonna do that something (predict it), and then later on you do it...does that mean your prediction wasn’t a prediction...?

You or I can try to predict the stock market,
but we can't willfully make it move the way
we desire through our own planning and
implementation.

And if one plans and implements their partners
birthday party, to make it happen, would you
call that a 'prophecy' by announcing it prior .??

It was you who was equivocating two different things, one: the law, two; the sacrifice. "



''It is finished'' refers to taking away the sin of man through the blood sacrifice of Jesus. It does not take away the law or the prophets;

''Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…''

Everything has not been accomplished. The world goes on as before the sacrifice. As far as the world in concerned, it is business as usual.

The promised return in power and glory has yet to be accomplished. Until then the stipulation: ''until everything is accomplished.'' has not been fulfilled. Only when Jesus returns in power and glory for all the world to see is the prophesy fulfilled.

If you plan something that you ‘can’ make happen, and then you announce ahead of time that you’re gonna do ‘that’ something (predict it), and then later on you ‘do’ make it happen...does that mean your prediction wasn’t a prediction...?

And if one plans and implements their partners
birthday party, to make it happen, would you call
that a 'prophecy' by announcing it prior .??

If I planned her birthday party, and then I announced ahead of time that I’m gonna throw her a birthday party (predicted it), and then later on I ‘did’ throw her that birthday party...then yes, I would call my prediction a prediction.

Sending out birthday invitations is deemed prophecizing? 🤔

What about monthly board meetings?
Executives prophecize their board meetings?

You'd think the 'Word of God' would be clearer than what we have in the bible, thereby saving a whole lot of trouble with multiple possible interpretations and meanings.....

Again...Please quote ‘my description of hell’ that you’re referring to.

Again...If you plan something that you ‘can’ make happen, and then you announce ahead of time that you’re gonna do ‘that’ something (predict it), and then later on you ‘do’ make it happen...does that mean your prediction wasn’t a prediction...?

PROPHECY (def.)

the foretelling or prediction of what is to come. something that is declared by a prophet, especially a divinely inspired prediction, instruction, or exhortation. a divinely inspired utterance or revelation: oracular.


unfortunately, planning and implementing a birthday
and sending out invitations is not a 'divinely inspired'
prediction.

But you seem to see a convenient parallel.

>>>



That is not the kind of Hell that Jesus visited.

surely any good astute christian would know that?

Those are all of the multiple different definitions from your source. The specific highlighted definition certainly does apply.I simply see that a prediction is a prediction. Period.

Incidentally...from New Oxford American Dictionary:

proph·e·cy - a prediction.

‘Same’ as the highlighted definition that you posted.

So where’s the specific “description” of hell...? Is mentioning the word “hell” a “description” of hell to you...?

So you cherry pick from the definition I provided.
how convenient.

Well according to you, If I say I m going out for a beer
and burger tomorrow, it's classed as a prophecy.

You didn’t provide “the” definition. You provided ‘multiple’ definitions.

LOL not at all, def. seems rather specific.

re:

PROPHECY =

The foretelling or prediction of what is to come. something that is declared by a prophet, especially a divinely inspired prediction, instruction, or exhortation. a divinely inspired utterance or revelation: oracular

You didn’t provide “the” definition. You provided ‘multiple’ definitions.Yep. Each one is a ‘different’ definition. Clearly.

You described hell as a place for the unforgiven,
The hell Jesus visited holds everybody regardless.

You seem unfamiliar with the Jewish place called
sheol, otherwise referred to as hades(Greek)
or hell (Apostles creed)

Sheol/hades/hell is a realm with two divisions,
as such your definition of hell does not apply.

You are conveniently dividing up what
came as a full explanation, then being
selective of what suites you.

No different cherry picking scripture.

Prior to Jesus’ death ‘and’ resurrection, the righteous and the wicked souls went to Sheol...which had two compartments...one was a place of torment, and the other was a place of comfort and rest. After Jesus’ resurrection, righteous souls went and go to Heaven...and the wicked souls remain and go to the place of torment, until the final judgment. Forgiven people ‘do’ go to Heaven, and unforgiven people ‘do’ go to hell.

Nope. It most definitely was not a “full explanation.” Many definitions provide multiple example definitions of whichever word is being defined, as yours clearly did.

Prior?
Jesus did not visit Sheol prior to his death,
He did so after, and it was the exact same
sheol that existed before his death.

He decended to Sheol in the time between
death and resurrection.

the dictionary source I used did not divide
them up as separate definitions. .. You did.

NOTHING you’ve said negated anything in my post above.

Nope. Your source clearly divided them up as the multiple example definitions that they are. Hence the use of periods by your source.

“Trump is going to win the election.” - Pat Robertson

Jewish belief says Shoel still employs two
compartments where the righteous and wicked
are kept.

So what...? “Jewish belief” also says that Jesus isn’t the Messiah.

They could well be correct.





How would you know?

How do you know Sheol isn't operating as normal.?

They're not.
How would you know otherwise...?

You are making the claim that Sheol no longer
operates like days of old.

again how would you know such?

*Deleted double post.

I also make the claim that Jesus is the Messiah.

Claims, ..nothing but wishful thinking claims.

Faith allows all sorts of belief to flourish. That's why we have countless versions of God, gods, spirits, demons and angels. Faith based belief that provides comfort, certainty and meaning to the believer.

We will just agree to disagree,

But on the subject of punctuation:
, there was no such punctuation in the original
Biblical manuscript language.. Are you sure that
Scripture translators over millenia correctly applied
such?
Translators themselves were not inspired by God,
hence their puntuation could have errors
which would change how people interpret.

And the fake letters of Paul and Peter included
in Bible dont do much for credibility as the book
being the inspired word of a God, especially
considering the shaky methods christians
used to decide what is canonical and what isn't.




No believer can substantiate that their version
is anymore valid than another's... but it dont stop
some foolishly claiming if not insisting otherwise.
Worst are Christianity and Islam which have the
mission of converting the world to their beliefs.

And all they are doing is inviting people to join
A mob which still continually argues amongst
themselves about what it true and what isn't
in their man written mythology.

Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned ‘the Bible’, and never read ‘the Bible’...because there was no ‘the Bible’ to be had or read. There was no ‘the Bible’ until the fourth century.

The Bible isn’t the foundation of the Christian faith. It clearly wasn’t for Jesus’ most devout first century followers, and it’s not now. But many people are quick to question or attack a book that didn’t even exist when Christianity began.

Christianity would still be true even if every Bible and manuscript in the world were non-existent.

thank the one and only Church for that

Good discussion.

Do you like other christians, take Bible to
be the true and accurate word of God?

You do rely on scripture for the basis of
your beliefs, correct?





Anyone who relies on a personal bubble of
make believe can claim anything to be true.
I've asked you to substantiate claims you
have made, but you seem unable.

True, the illiterate relied on hand me down
oral account..the question is how much truth
and accuracy did such tales maintain when
passed along?.. ie: how much fact vs fiction?

Tall stories have flourished in all cultures and
and belief systems, no reason backward middle
east folks would be exempt.

You refer to me as a ‘Christian’; although I’ve not used that terminology in regards to myself. Regardless, there is a difference between something that is seen as an authority for one to live by, and something that is considered the foundation of one’s faith. The Jesus that I know isn’t bound by the covers of a book. And my belief in Him doesn’t require an inerrant Bible, nor does my belief in Him require a literal interpretation of the entire Bible.For example, the “claim” that you just made.My beliefs are mine, just as yours are yours. I don’t have to substantiate my beliefs, even though I sometimes choose to do so. If others choose to see things differently for themselves...or have beliefs different than mine...then so be it.

Wrong. The most devout first century followers of Jesus that I’m referring to relied upon what they had seen and heard with their own eyes and ears. They witnessed His miracles, they heard His teachings, and they watched Him die. And then, *most importantly*, they saw Him alive afterwards. Some even had breakfast with Him on the beach afterwards.

Those followers didn't record their alleged
experiences, you are relying on mystery
ghost writers well after to relay what you
now claim to be true.

In other words you rely on writers that
didn't witness any such events.

Believers are known to stretch their imagination
then claim it as the 'truth'.

Beliefs; we all have em’. Yours and mine are clearly different from one another. I’m OK with that.

Remember Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man was in torment while Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham, a place of peace and rest. This was before Jesus died and rose. The 2 men were in different parts of the hereafter and there was no crossing over.

Some argue Abraham's bosom refers to heaven.
others say Abraham's bosom is the compartment
in Sheol/hades for the righteous.

as usual christian beliefs conflict and come down
to nothing more than differences of unsubstantiated
opinion.

I don't see it as a matter of who believes this or that, but a question of what is true and factual and what is not.

Simply believing that something is true doesn't make it true. What it says in this or that book doesn't make the claims made within the book true.

The question is: why do we believe whatever we happen to believe?

They don't know what is true and factual but go
on pretending they do, even displaying the absurd
audacity to call others out as Wrong, like some
self appointed Supreme authority on the matter.

When you apply the litmus test to their claims
they show no substance, for their belief is purely
Subjective.

And worse, lashing out at anyone who questions. Rather than exploring the nature of belief in an objective manner, making it personal, resorting to ad Homs.

The Pharisees weren't "the Pharisees" because of the God-given laws. They were "the Pharisees" because they lost sight of the spirit of the laws.

Frankly, I can't think of anything more graceless than encouraging people to destroy themselves. That was then, this is now. Now nihilists are the problem.

Just like the Pharisees of today. They place so much importance on the rules and regulations and rituals, but leave out some of the weightier things like love and compassion and grace.

You don't know what love, compassion or grace are. You are too blind to understand.

lol

And who are these Pharisees of today that you speak of?

Don’t generalize.

Those who champion religious rules and religious regulations as being more important than the people that these things were designed to serve and benefit.