Chick-fil-A is still bankrolling anti-LGBTQ causes

[Grumps 3,704]

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 6:59 AM, ArgoEagle said:

He called out all their sins. He did not stay quiet about any of them. That is the point.

Do you really think that Jesus called out all their sins? You don't think he was quiet about any of the since of the Pharisees? I don't think you believe that. Please read your interaction with GiveEmElle carefully.

[Grumps 3,704]

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 9:02 AM, lost said:

If you are going to quote the Bible, know the Bible.  The Pharisees were Jews, Yes.  Church--N-O!!  The Jews did not even know Jesus when he came and rejected Him and still do today( He came unto His own and His own knew Him not John 1:11) They do not accept Jesus as being the Messiah.  The Pharisees and Sadducee were Jewish cults that were so far from the old testament law at the time Jesus constantly mocked them and scorned them.  They held people to it, but did not keep it themselves.  They also had "created" their own laws---  They were not the Church.  The Church were the Disciples and the new believers..  So get it right.  They were His people, yes--  So you got that "jeer" correct.  And no offense-- NONE WHATSOEVER--  But i will be glad to introduce you to the God of the Bible should you so chose.  My email address is on here and i will be glad to talk to you.  The God of the Bible is not the God who winks at sin.  Romans 6:6 even says He nailed the old man nature to the cross that we might have freedom from it.  So His death on the cross provided freedom from those things he calls a transgression.  We are not bound-- can't chose or help ourselves-- from doing any of those things he calls an abomination.

NONE of us knows the Bible as well as we should. I am pretty sure that GiveEmElle meant that the Pharisees were the religious people. Please don't miss the point because of the semantics of her use of "church." The Pharisees during the time of Jesus' human life were the religious people in charge, much like Christians are today in the US. So I think that GiveEmElle's point is valid.

Who said that God winks at sin? I think that the question is whether your job as a Christian is to point out the sins of others or to love them and strive to help them to become disciples of Christ. Did I miss the point?

[Grumps 3,704]

6 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

yeah, and when Judgement Day comes and these lost souls stand before God and they say well, I did not accept Jesus as my savior b/c people told me that Jesus loves me, but failed to point out to me that my sins would send me to Hell, so therefore I did not think there was any need for Jesus. Yall 2 are sliding on a slippery slope and don't realize it. This type of thinking is going to responsible for a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth. Please reconsider.

You and I both understand that we are having a REALLY important discussion. I think we agree on almost everything, but the big question, as I see it, is what is your duty and my duty, as professing Christians, to those whose salvation we do not know about. Do we agree that is the point of this discussion?

If that is the discussion that we are having then let's continue. I think that we agree that you and I are commanded to go into all the world and make disciples of Jesus Christ, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Do we agree?

If so, then how do we make disciples of non-believers? Are you saying that we should go to people we barely know and then explain to them how sinful they are and that they will spend eternity in hell unless they submit their lives to this Being called God that they have no belief in just because you say so? That is what I am hearing (though I may be hearing wrong) and I think that is not what I am called to do.

I am convinced that the way for me to make disciples is to act as much like Jesus as possible. This means loving people and showing them respect and helping them if it is in my power. If I treat someone like Jesus would then that person will likely be drawn to me. THEN they might listen to me and I can explain to them that my love for them is because God loved me first and that He sent his Son to die for my sins so that I could be holy enough to be with God for eternity.

So it seems like we have completely different approaches. Which do you think is Biblical? Which do you think is most effective?

[Grumps 3,704]

5 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Exactly. Some folks need to study Revelations,.

Can you explain how Revelation explains how we should treat each other? Or are you making a different point. I would love to discuss Revelation with you!

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, Grumps said:

Can you explain how Revelation explains how we should treat each other? Or are you making a different point. I would love to discuss Revelation with you!

I am no expert on Revelations but have studied it a lot. I would love to discuss it with you in person but no way to do it here. Get a good study guide and spend some time with it.

[ShocksMyBrain 9,366]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

I am no expert on Revelations but have studied it a lot. I would love to discuss it with you in person but no way to do it here. Get a good study guide and spend some time with it.

Then don't say things like this:

10 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Exactly. Some folks need to study Revelations,.

 

[homersapien 11,377]

10 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Exactly. Some folks need to study Revelations,.

I had to "like" this considering the laugh I got from it.   

[alexava 6,973]

But we're skeptical of science...

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

12 hours ago, Grumps said:

You and I both understand that we are having a REALLY important discussion. I think we agree on almost everything, but the big question, as I see it, is what is your duty and my duty, as professing Christians, to those whose salvation we do not know about. Do we agree that is the point of this discussion?

If that is the discussion that we are having then let's continue. I think that we agree that you and I are commanded to go into all the world and make disciples of Jesus Christ, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Do we agree?

If so, then how do we make disciples of non-believers? Are you saying that we should go to people we barely know and then explain to them how sinful they are and that they will spend eternity in hell unless they submit their lives to this Being called God that they have no belief in just because you say so? That is what I am hearing (though I may be hearing wrong) and I think that is not what I am called to do.

I am convinced that the way for me to make disciples is to act as much like Jesus as possible. This means loving people and showing them respect and helping them if it is in my power. If I treat someone like Jesus would then that person will likely be drawn to me. THEN they might listen to me and I can explain to them that my love for them is because God loved me first and that He sent his Son to die for my sins so that I could be holy enough to be with God for eternity.

So it seems like we have completely different approaches. Which do you think is Biblical? Which do you think is most effective?

Let's go back to the title of the thread here Anti-LGBTQ.   We are instructed to "test the spirits". To me that means consider each situation we come across, and simply determine if it is sin or not, which the Bible plainly points out in Genesis and Romans that homosexuality is wicked and unnatural. If a person walks up to you and says is my homosexuality a sin?, you say yes it is. You do not judge that person for this sin b/c you are not the judge, but you don't say well, if it doesn't bother you, then it doesn't bother me (luke warmness). If someone asks you if their lying, stealing, gambling, adultery, hating other people, etc. is sinful you say yes. Then you point out that these sins will send unsaved people to Hell (biblical), then you tell them about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ makes it possible for their salvation, if they accept this gift from God. Then it is up to them to believe and receive if they so choose, or to reject the gift and face the consequences. Don't be naïve about Jesus either. Jesus got angry when the people were having an auction in the Temple and overturned the tables and literally ran them out. Why, bc they were using the Temple of God for their own purposes and therefore defiling it. Jesus also was sarcastic in several places in the Bible. We are instructed to abhor (hate) what is evil, and cleave to what is good. We are always to love the sinner, hate the sin. I can't put it any plainer than that.

[Grumps 3,704]

58 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said:

Let's go back to the title of the thread here Anti-LGBTQ.   We are instructed to "test the spirits". To me that means consider each situation we come across, and simply determine if it is sin or not, which the Bible plainly points out in Genesis and Romans that homosexuality is wicked and unnatural. If a person walks up to you and says is my homosexuality a sin?, you say yes it is. You do not judge that person for this sin b/c you are not the judge, but you don't say well, if it doesn't bother you, then it doesn't bother me (luke warmness). If someone asks you if their lying, stealing, gambling, adultery, hating other people, etc. is sinful you say yes. Then you point out that these sins will send unsaved people to Hell (biblical), then you tell them about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ makes it possible for their salvation, if they accept this gift from God. Then it is up to them to believe and receive if they so choose, or to reject the gift and face the consequences. Don't be naïve about Jesus either. Jesus got angry when the people were having an auction in the Temple and overturned the tables and literally ran them out. Why, bc they were using the Temple of God for their own purposes and therefore defiling it. Jesus also was sarcastic in several places in the Bible. We are instructed to abhor (hate) what is evil, and cleave to what is good. We are always to love the sinner, hate the sin. I can't put it any plainer than that.

Regarding your discussion with @GiveEmElle, do you think that your discussion with her on this forum makes her A)more likely to want to follow the Christ you claim to follow or B) less likely to  want to follow the Christ you claim to follow? To me, that is the most important question here. Maybe she will give us the correct answer to the question since she is the only one who really knows.

If she answers A, then I was wrong and will commend you for your work for Christ's Kingdom. If she answers B, then I would hope that you would realize that a different approach would yield better results (and I would still commend you for your work for Christ's Kingdom.)

[lost 452]

10 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Regarding your discussion with @GiveEmElle, do you think that your discussion with her on this forum makes her A)more likely to want to follow the Christ you claim to follow or B) less likely to  want to follow the Christ you claim to follow? To me, that is the most important question here. Maybe she will give us the correct answer to the question since she is the only one who really knows.

If she answers A, then I was wrong and will commend you for your work for Christ's Kingdom. If she answers B, then I would hope that you would realize that a different approach would yield better results (and I would still commend you for your work for Christ's Kingdom.)

Grumps your tail has to be sore straddling the fence like you do.  There is "no different approach".  You either tell people the truth or you hide your light( if you have one) under a bushel.  When people are going over the edge of a cliff that is not the time to try the political correctness approach,  In fact there is no such thing in witnessing.  It is ONE WAY, Jesus, or no way,  There is no doubt what Elle has meant in her posts, so there is no reason to beat around the bush.  And the others on here make no bones about their lack of respect for God or the Bible, so there is no " different approach"  Some are on here like Argo and I because we are Auburn fans and we mean exactly what we post.  Others are on here because it is a forum and they play the internet games of troll and slam---.  For us who are on here to say exactly what we mean and that is the only reason, then there is nothing we can do about those who are intent to make it a mud hole in here with wallowing going on.

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

17 minutes ago, lost said:

Grumps your tail has to be sore straddling the fence like you do.  There is "no different approach".  You either tell people the truth or you hide your light( if you have one) under a bushel.  When people are going over the edge of a cliff that is not the time to try the political correctness approach,  In fact there is no such thing in witnessing.  It is ONE WAY, Jesus, or no way,  There is no doubt what Elle has meant in her posts, so there is no reason to beat around the bush.  And the others on here make no bones about their lack of respect for God or the Bible, so there is no " different approach"  Some are on here like Argo and I because we are Auburn fans and we mean exactly what we post.  Others are on here because it is a forum and they play the internet games of troll and slam---.  For us who are on here to say exactly what we mean and that is the only reason, then there is nothing we can do about those who are intent to make it a mud hole in here with wallowing going on.

This is for Grumps (I hit the quote button on the wrong post, sorry)  Read Acts 13:46-51. Paul and Barnabas preached to the Jews 1st and they did not receive the message. Since the Jews rejected the message of Christ, Paul and Barnabas preached it to the Gentiles and many of them believed. After they finished their ministry, they shook the dust from their feet and moved on to the next city.

Both Lost and I have preached the Gospel during this conversation. It is up to everyone who reads it to accept or reject. I hope they accept! If they don't there is nothing I can do. Elle's future is up to Elle; I have done my part. As far as you're concerned, it appears to me that you are trying to apply your life principles to the Bible, instead of applying the Bible to your life. Lost has been a pastor for years, and I have been a deacon for years. We know of which we speak.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

39 minutes ago, lost said:

 For us who are on here to say exactly what we mean and that is the only reason, then there is nothing we can do about those who are intent to make it a mud hole in here with wallowing going on.

Bingo. Sentence of the year.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

Regarding your discussion with @GiveEmElle, do you think that your discussion with her on this forum makes her A)more likely to want to follow the Christ you claim to follow or B) less likely to  want to follow the Christ you claim to follow? To me, that is the most important question here. Maybe she will give us the correct answer to the question since she is the only one who really knows.

If she answers A, then I was wrong and will commend you for your work for Christ's Kingdom. If she answers B, then I would hope that you would realize that a different approach would yield better results (and I would still commend you for your work for Christ's Kingdom.)

The answer is C. I've already accepted Christ as my savior. But I am very disgusted with those within the Christian faith. We've taken the approach of pointing out sin, not because we want to lead people to Christ ( if we truly wanted this we would tell them of God's unending love and how He sent His Son to pay the penalty for sin) but because we often need to point out flaws of others to make us feel good about our own shortcomings. This stance of fighting against sin, primarily abortion and homosexuality ( as if there are no other sins) has led to the election of one of the most immoral, uneducated men to ever serve as POTUS. New Testsment churches aren't growing and instead there's a growth of false doctrines rising up like "health and wealth" churches (see Kenneth Copeland) who promote a genie in a bottle God. When Christ left this world he commanded his followers to preach the gospel. That gospel is that ALL are sinners, and that a savior came who loved us so much that he willingly became a sacrifice to pay the penalty for ALL our sins. Jesus never commanded me or anyone else to convict people of their sins, that's what the Holy Spirit is for. All believers need to do when addressing non believers is tell them everyone sins and Jesus paid the penalty for that sin. If they chose to accept Christ, then they will be convicted through the HOLY SPIRIT of sins in their own life. If they become a believer and have questions about God's commands then believers can and should point to scripture that addresses that. But instead we think sharing the gospel is pointing out sin first rather than putting JESUS first. It is clear from this conversation that there are those here who get immense pleasure from screaming words like "sinner" and "heathen" and I will NEVER agree with that. 

[lost 452]

57 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

The answer is C. I've already accepted Christ as my savior. But I am very disgusted with those within the Christian faith. We've taken the approach of pointing out sin, not because we want to lead people to Christ ( if we truly wanted this we would tell them of God's unending love and how He sent His Son to pay the penalty for sin) but because we often need to point out flaws of others to make us feel good about our own shortcomings. This stance of fighting against sin, primarily abortion and homosexuality ( as if there are no other sins) has led to the election of one of the most immoral, uneducated men to ever serve as POTUS. New Testsment churches aren't growing and instead there's a growth of false doctrines rising up like "health and wealth" churches (see Kenneth Copeland) who promote a genie in a bottle God. When Christ left this world he commanded his followers to preach the gospel. That gospel is that ALL are sinners, and that a savior came who loved us so much that he willingly became a sacrifice to pay the penalty for ALL our sins. Jesus never commanded me or anyone else to convict people of their sins, that's what the Holy Spirit is for. All believers need to do when addressing non believers is tell them everyone sins and Jesus paid the penalty for that sin. If they chose to accept Christ, then they will be convicted through the HOLY SPIRIT of sins in their own life. If they become a believer and have questions about God's commands then believers can and should point to scripture that addresses that. But instead we think sharing the gospel is pointing out sin first rather than putting JESUS first. It is clear from this conversation that there are those here who get immense pleasure from screaming words like "sinner" and "heathen" and I will NEVER agree with that. 

COPOUT   Pure copout...  Bringing politics in a Godly discussion shows your true reasoning.  No Christian elected President Trump for his morals.  They elected him to stop socialism and a devil called hillary clinton.  And to attack those you say you are a part of again show the lack of Christianity, Jesus pointed out a Kingdom divided can not stand.  And he was talking to those who accused Him of being of satan.  The only ones who are putting SIN 1ST--- is those who insist it is not necessary to be free of it, Not necessary to address it, or not necessary to stand against it.....  Those who call themselves part of Jesus, yet insist on " no judgements and no restraints"--  except on Christians.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said:

The answer is C. I've already accepted Christ as my savior. But I am very disgusted with those within the Christian faith. We've taken the approach of pointing out sin, not because we want to lead people to Christ ( if we truly wanted this we would tell them of God's unending love and how He sent His Son to pay the penalty for sin) but because we often need to point out flaws of others to make us feel good about our own shortcomings. This stance of fighting against sin, primarily abortion and homosexuality ( as if there are no other sins) has led to the election of one of the most immoral, uneducated men to ever serve as POTUS. New Testsment churches aren't growing and instead there's a growth of false doctrines rising up like "health and wealth" churches (see Kenneth Copeland) who promote a genie in a bottle God. When Christ left this world he commanded his followers to preach the gospel. That gospel is that ALL are sinners, and that a savior came who loved us so much that he willingly became a sacrifice to pay the penalty for ALL our sins. Jesus never commanded me or anyone else to convict people of their sins, that's what the Holy Spirit is for. All believers need to do when addressing non believers is tell them everyone sins and Jesus paid the penalty for that sin. If they chose to accept Christ, then they will be convicted through the HOLY SPIRIT of sins in their own life. If they become a believer and have questions about God's commands then believers can and should point to scripture that addresses that. But instead we think sharing the gospel is pointing out sin first rather than putting JESUS first. It is clear from this conversation that there are those here who get immense pleasure from screaming words like "sinner" and "heathen" and I will NEVER agree with that. 

I agree with virtually everything you just said. I apologize if I implied that you are not a Christ follower. My point was that people who are trying to make disciples for Christ should try to make people want to follow Christ, not push them away. I used you as an example because you are open and honest enough to tell how you really feel. I don't want to follow a God who would rather point out my faults (when I am already aware of them) than to love me BEFORE pointing out my faults. I thought that you (Elle) probably felt like I did that the messages directed at you were pushing you away from their God more than they were drawing you to Him.

If you don't mind answering, if you had to pick A or B, which would you pick? The reason I care is that I want ANYONE who is trying to share Jesus to realize that if they are pushing people from Jesus then they should probably change their approach. Maybe, if they realize in a specific example that their methods don't work then they will learn to do it better!

[Grumps 3,704]

2 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

This is for Grumps (I hit the quote button on the wrong post, sorry)  Read Acts 13:46-51. Paul and Barnabas preached to the Jews 1st and they did not receive the message. Since the Jews rejected the message of Christ, Paul and Barnabas preached it to the Gentiles and many of them believed. After they finished their ministry, they shook the dust from their feet and moved on to the next city.

Both Lost and I have preached the Gospel during this conversation. It is up to everyone who reads it to accept or reject. I hope they accept! If they don't there is nothing I can do. Elle's future is up to Elle; I have done my part. As far as you're concerned, it appears to me that you are trying to apply your life principles to the Bible, instead of applying the Bible to your life. Lost has been a pastor for years, and I have been a deacon for years. We know of which we speak.

Look, I consider you to be my brother in Christ. Obviously at least some of us have not learned Evangelism 101. My main point is that if you are pushing people away from Jesus then you are not making disciples. NO ONE has said here that sin is okay. What we are trying to tell you is that "speaking the truth in love" works WAY better than just speaking the truth.

What did Paul mean when he said that he was all things to all people?(I am paraphrasing the scripture but will happily give you the exact scripture when I get home.

Finally, I highly recommend that you be very careful implying that you know of what you speak because of your man-made position within your church. It does not come across very well.  I just ask you to consider why I am willing to take the time to type all of this. When I get home I will read Acts 13 in context. But it sounds like you are saying that if people don't listen to what you are saying then you should go talk to other people. I agree with that, but we should also ask ourselves if we are saying things in the most effective way possible.

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

12 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Look, I consider you to be my brother in Christ. Obviously at least some of us have not learned Evangelism 101. My main point is that if you are pushing people away from Jesus then you are not making disciples. NO ONE has said here that sin is okay. What we are trying to tell you is that "speaking the truth in love" works WAY better than just speaking the truth.

What did Paul mean when he said that he was all things to all people?(I am paraphrasing the scripture but will happily give you the exact scripture when I get home.

Finally, I highly recommend that you be very careful implying that you know of what you speak because of your man-made position within your church. It does not come across very well.  I just ask you to consider why I am willing to take the time to type all of this. When I get home I will read Acts 13 in context. But it sounds like you are saying that if people don't listen to what you are saying then you should go talk to other people. I agree with that, but we should also ask ourselves if we are saying things in the most effective way possible.

Peace be with you brother.

[homersapien 11,377]

1 hour ago, lost said:

COPOUT   Pure copout...  Bringing politics in a Godly discussion shows your true reasoning.  No Christian elected President Trump for his morals.  They elected him to stop socialism and a devil called hillary clinton.  And to attack those you say you are a part of again show the lack of Christianity, Jesus pointed out a Kingdom divided can not stand.  And he was talking to those who accused Him of being of satan.  The only ones who are putting SIN 1ST--- is those who insist it is not necessary to be free of it, Not necessary to address it, or not necessary to stand against it.....  Those who call themselves part of Jesus, yet insist on " no judgements and no restraints"--  except on Christians.

Irony

And I'd still like to know how the Bible informs your beliefs on anthropogenic global warming.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

1 hour ago, lost said:

COPOUT   Pure copout...  Bringing politics in a Godly discussion shows your true reasoning.  No Christian elected President Trump for his morals.  They elected him to stop socialism and a devil called hillary clinton.  And to attack those you say you are a part of again show the lack of Christianity, Jesus pointed out a Kingdom divided can not stand.  And he was talking to those who accused Him of being of satan.  The only ones who are putting SIN 1ST--- is those who insist it is not necessary to be free of it, Not necessary to address it, or not necessary to stand against it.....  Those who call themselves part of Jesus, yet insist on " no judgements and no restraints"--  except on Christians.

To the contrary, Dr. James Dobson (founder of Focus on the Family) posited that Trump had recently become a born again Christian and excused some of his behavior as that of a "baby Christian."

[lost 452]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Irony

And I'd still like to know how the Bible informs your beliefs on anthropogenic global warming.

A MUD ^^  Lover... The only reason it is here

[lost 452]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

To the contrary, Dr. James Dobson (founder of Focus on the Family) posited that Trump had recently become a born again Christian and excused some of his behavior as that of a "baby Christian."

James Dodson is not me. Neither does he speak for Me.  He posted that he had "heard" and there was nothing of "excusing".. I just went and read from the horses mouth.  He said regardless, it was him or hillary and he had good people surrounding him in his staff(  chaplain staff)  to help guide him.  But regardless, WE the christians voted to keep hillary out, bernie out and to have a chance to undo what obama did.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Just now, lost said:

James Dodson is not me. Neither does he speak for Me. 

Well you didn't say "you."  You said "no Christian..."  You even followed it up with "we Christians..."  I simply pointed out that if James Dobson is putting that out there, it's quite likely some Christians did.  In other words, you can't back up a claim that broad with no qualifiers.

 

[lost 452]

Dr. James Dobson on
Donald Trump’s Christian Faith

Only the Lord knows the condition of a person’s heart.  I can only tell you what I’ve heard.  First, Trump appears to be tender to things of the Spirit.  I also hear that Paula White has known Trump for years and that she personally led him to Christ.  Do I know that for sure?  No.  Do I know the details of that alleged conversion?  I can’t say that I do.  But there are many Christian leaders who are serving on a faith advisory committee for Trump in the future.  I am among them.  There are about 25 of us that include Jerry Falwell, Jr., Robert Jeffress, Jack Graham, Ben Carson, James Robison, Michele Bachmann, and many others whom you would probably know.  We’ve all agreed to serve. How will that play out if Trump becomes president?   I don’t know.  It is a good start, I would think.  

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

19 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Irony

And I'd still like to know how the Bible informs your beliefs on anthropogenic global warming.

This is not a joke. Aren't you either atheist or agnostic? Correct me if I'm wrong please.