|
Home > Archive > Recovery aa > December 2006 > Open to a good place
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Open to a good place
|
|
|
| >From the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous
"There was no mistake about it there was something that I failed
to do in those simple steps. So I carefully went over each day as best
I could since my first drink after the fourteen weeks of sobriety, and
found I had slipped away from quite a few of some of the most important
things which I should do in order to keep sober.
Certainly I was down now-ashamed to face my new friends-my own
family giving me up as lost and everyone saying, "The system didn't
work, did it?"
This last remark was more than too much for me. Why should this
fellowship of hard working fellows be jeopardized by me? It worked for
them. As a matter of fact, not one who has kept faithfully to it has
ever slipped.
One morning, after a sleepless night worrying over what I could
do to straighten myself out, I went to my room alone-took my Bible in
hand and asked Him, the One Power, that I might open to a good place to
read-and I read. "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man.
But I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my
mind and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my
members. Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me out of the body
of this death?"
That was enough for me-I started to understand. Here were the
words of Paul a great teacher. What then if I had slipped? Now, I could
understand.
From that day years ago, I gave, still give and always will give
time everyday to read the word of God and let Him do all the caring.
Who am I to try to run myself or anyone else? "
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:33 pm |
|
tedw wrote:
> From that day years ago, I gave, still give and always will give
> time everyday to read the word of God and let Him do all the caring.
> Who am I to try to run myself or anyone else? "
>
Would you care to explain, in your own words, what that paragraph means
to you? Especially that last sentence...
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
> tedw wrote:
>
>
> Would you care to explain, in your own words, what that paragraph means
> to you? Especially that last sentence...
Sure. After you.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
> tedw wrote:
>
>
> Would you care to explain, in your own words, what that paragraph means
> to you? Especially that last sentence...
Joe,
He doesn't "get it" and has a really long way to go before he does. :-)
He needs prayers and NA/12 steps, badly.
JimB
| |
|
|
JimB wrote:
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> He doesn't "get it" and has a really long way to go before he does. :-)
> He needs prayers and NA/12 steps, badly.
>
> JimB
Cult like answer
| |
|
|
JimB wrote:
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> He doesn't "get it" and has a really long way to go before he does. :-)
> He needs prayers and NA/12 steps, badly.
>
> JimB
"So it is with the addiction recovery industry. I have no doubts about
the sincere intentions and well-meaning efforts of many who work in
this area. Most really do want to help the alcoholic and the drug
addict and may sacrifice a great deal to do so. As it turns out,
however, their efforts are seriously misguided.
Surprising as it may seem, the recovery industry, as a whole, is not
helping, but actually hurting the people it is try to help" excerpt
from The Useful Lie by Willian Playfair ,M.D.
http://www.graceandtruthbooks.com/l...85&RP=/booklis.
| |
|
|
tedw wrote:
Surprising as it may seem, the recovery industry, as a whole, is not
helping, but actually hurting the people it is try to help" excerpt
from The Useful Lie by Willian Playfair ,M.D.
North America has lost many manufacturing jobs but they have been
replaced to a degree by the creation and growth of the treatment and
poverty industries.
Jimbo
| |
|
|
jimbo wrote:
> tedw wrote:
> Surprising as it may seem, the recovery industry, as a whole, is not
> helping, but actually hurting the people it is try to help" excerpt
> from The Useful Lie by Willian Playfair ,M.D.
>
> North America has lost many manufacturing jobs but they have been
> replaced to a degree by the creation and growth of the treatment and
> poverty industries.
> Jimbo
And welfare offices and fast food joints.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:34 pm |
|
tedw wrote:
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
>
>
> Sure. After you.
>
You are the one who posted it. I am asking you to help me understand it.
| |
|
| JoeRaisin wrote to teddy:
> I am asking you to help me understand it.
The height of ambition. No..., wait...., that's an ant crawling up an
elephants leg with the intention of rape. How about the blind leading
the ultimate optimist.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
> tedw wrote:
>
>
> You are the one who posted it. I am asking you to help me understand it.
I dont believe the sincerity of your question. You do have ulterior
motives other than what you state, don't you?
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:34 pm |
| >>>>> From that day years ago, I gave, still give and always will give
>
>
> I dont believe the sincerity of your question. You do have ulterior
> motives other than what you state, don't you?
>
You don’t have an interpretation of that scripture? Or is it that you
have several interpretations and want to find out what I think so you
can pick one that either agrees or disagrees with me?
What that verse means to me should have nothing to do with what it means
to you. You have maintained that spirituality is a personal thing so
your interpretation of that paragraph should be yours despite what
others think.
That you wish to test the winds prior to stating your thoughts certainly
smacks of ulterior (or perhaps even nefarious) motives.
During our frequent debates, while I disagree with your positions
(particularly that there is only one way to sobriety or spirituality), I
have always thought that you believed what you were saying.
I wonder about that now.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> You don't have an interpretation of that scripture? Or is it that you
> have several interpretations and want to find out what I think so you
> can pick one that either agrees or disagrees with me?
>
> What that verse means to me should have nothing to do with what it means
> to you. You have maintained that spirituality is a personal thing so
> your interpretation of that paragraph should be yours despite what
> others think.
>
> That you wish to test the winds prior to stating your thoughts certainly
> smacks of ulterior (or perhaps even nefarious) motives.
>
> During our frequent debates, while I disagree with your positions
> (particularly that there is only one way to sobriety or spirituality), I
> have always thought that you believed what you were saying.
>
> I wonder about that now.
I know what the scripture means Joe. Your question however wasnt in
regards to that mostly.
It was in regard to "Who am I to try to run myself or anyone else"
which is the AA member talking. However, as I said, I question your
sincerity in asking it.
However, if you are sincere, then I would say that "running oneself" is
a way of saying we are playing God, charting our own course through
life, rather than allowing God to guide us through conscious contact
with him in our consciences.
As far as"running others" its kind of silly to even try unless your a
jailer. Possible exceptions the control of minor children who do need
boundaries and guidance, and, in a sense, parents are responsible for
controlling them.
Now, if your question was in regards to the quotation from scripture
and you are in sincere in your desire to understand it. We could
discuss it.
Often I find the discussing of scripture here is not for the purpose of
understanding though.
It is for the purpose of scoffing and ridicule.
| |
| S. LaRocca 2006-12-06, 9:34 pm |
| "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in news:1164419211.708827.212480@
14g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
>
> jimbo wrote:
>
> And welfare offices and fast food joints.
>
>
And churches that have Lexus driving pastors that pay no taxes on their
take.... Funny though, the members drive rat shit Fords, and Chevys
| |
|
|
S. LaRocca wrote:
> "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in news:1164419211.708827.212480@
> 14g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> And churches that have Lexus driving pastors that pay no taxes on their
> take.... Funny though, the members drive rat shit Fords, and Chevys
Not all Churches are like that. A sterotype if ever there was one.
| |
| S. LaRocca 2006-12-06, 9:34 pm |
| "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in news:1164487114.549310.118490
@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
> Not all Churches are like that. A sterotype if ever there was one.
>
>
I know Ted... I was just seeing if you were there. You may find this hard
to believe, but I do admire many pastors, and plan to bring in some
groceries to help stock their pantries so they can distribute food for the
holidays to the needy.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:34 pm |
| >
>
> However, if you are sincere, then I would say that "running oneself" is
> a way of saying we are playing God, charting our own course through
> life, rather than allowing God to guide us through conscious contact
> with him in our consciences.
>
On this I would agree. I do believe that my conscience is how God let's
me know I am screwing up. I tried to ignore my conscience for a long
time but all that did was fill me up with guilt and self loathing.
In fact, it was through my conscience that I was guided into making amends.
>
> As far as"running others" its kind of silly to even try unless your a
> jailer. Possible exceptions the control of minor children who do need
> boundaries and guidance, and, in a sense, parents are responsible for
> controlling them.
>
Again I agree. But I'm not sure you truly feel this way as most of your
posts are basically you trying to control others.
> Now, if your question was in regards to the quotation from scripture
> and you are in sincere in your desire to understand it. We could
> discuss it.
What I would like to discuss is your insistence that there is only one
way to salvation and that even most Christians have it wrong.
How is it that you are absolutely certain that your interpretation of
the bible is correct and everyone else's is wrong?
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
> On this I would agree. I do believe that my conscience is how God let's
> me know I am screwing up. I tried to ignore my conscience for a long
> time but all that did was fill me up with guilt and self loathing.
>
> In fact, it was through my conscience that I was guided into making amends.
>
> Again I agree. But I'm not sure you truly feel this way as most of your
> posts are basically you trying to control others.
>
>
> What I would like to discuss is your insistence that there is only one
> way to salvation and that even most Christians have it wrong.
>
> How is it that you are absolutely certain that your interpretation of
> the bible is correct and everyone else's is wrong?
Again I agree. But I'm not sure you truly feel this way as most of
your
posts are basically you trying to control others-------------------
Your real agenda pops it head up.Im not trying to "control" anyone
here. I post what I see.
If someone doesnt like it, they are under no obligation to read it or
even respond. I point out the flaws in the program of Alcoholics
Anonymous. I point out where the teaching is flawed.
I point out how AA has lost its way.
How is it that you are absolutely certain that your interpretation of
the bible is correct and everyone else's is wrong?-------- Again, this
is something I never said. Its twisted spin.
When you know something Joe, you just know it. Certain things are not a
matter of interpretation. Homosexuality is wrong Joe, despite AA's
compromise with it. Resentment is a sin Joe, despite what anyone else
may say.
Jesus Christ was the one sent by God to reconcile man to him. Thats
not a matter of interpretation either.
If you ask me how I know, I would just tell you God has revealed it to
me.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:34 pm |
|
tedw wrote:
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
>
>
> Again I agree. But I'm not sure you truly feel this way as most of
> your
> posts are basically you trying to control others-------------------
>
> Your real agenda pops it head up.Im not trying to "control" anyone
> here. I post what I see.
> If someone doesnt like it, they are under no obligation to read it or
> even respond. I point out the flaws in the program of Alcoholics
> Anonymous. I point out where the teaching is flawed.
> I point out how AA has lost its way.
>
>
>
>
> How is it that you are absolutely certain that your interpretation of
> the bible is correct and everyone else's is wrong?-------- Again, this
> is something I never said. Its twisted spin.
>
> When you know something Joe, you just know it. Certain things are not a
> matter of interpretation. Homosexuality is wrong Joe, despite AA's
> compromise with it. Resentment is a sin Joe, despite what anyone else
> may say.
>
> Jesus Christ was the one sent by God to reconcile man to him. Thats
> not a matter of interpretation either.
>
> If you ask me how I know, I would just tell you God has revealed it to
> me.
>
I could make the same arguments for making amends. What makes your
intuition more valid than mine?
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
> tedw wrote:
>
> I could make the same arguments for making amends. What makes your
> intuition more valid than mine?
Joe, you either see or you dont.
There are times when I think an apology to someone is in order.Perhaps
more than apology in certain circumstances. However, forgiveness or
even sobriety doesnt depend on it. Amends, however, in the sense of
trying to undo or right every wrong you ever did is silly. You either
see it or you dont.
I've posted this before.
> "The nature of true love does not require you to lashed into the
> impossible agony of "making up" for all your past mistakes. Many of
> those whom you have done wrong are dead. Many others would not accept
> your apology, or they would only use your willingness to make up to
> them for their own selfish gain.If you truly loved people , you would
> not require them to make up for their every mistake, would you? You
> would simply be glad they recognized their wrong and repented of it.
> You would be content to see them live life as it should be lived, from
> that momement onward. So when you discover what is wrong , refuse to
> hide from it, justify it or blame someone else for it---then you are
> truly sorry and repentant. In this is found relief of burden. "
Now Joe, you either see it or you dont. Yes, it conflicts with what
youve been taught in AA. However, is it true or isnt?
You either see or you dont. If you dont, you have my sympathy. Maybe
sometime in the future you will see.
******************************************************************************************************
You might consider it like this. If the Governor gives you a pardon for
every crime you ever committed, you are free from the punishment of
the state. Your no longer required (legally) to make up for what you
did.
In the same way, if the King of this Universe gives you a pardon, you
are freed from the consequences of your actions.
He doesnt give you a pardon based on the fact that you have made
certain "Amends". He gives a pardon based on what Jesus Christ did for
you and me and everyone else here on the list. It's the atonement of
Christ and our faith in him that secures our pardon. Its not what you
do.
Search the scriptures to more fully understand the mystery.
All that being said I think there are some times when apologies (if you
consider apologies amends) are a very good idea.
For example, when a Father has abandoned his children its a very good
thing to go to them and apologize for you actions. Or perhaps amends to
another family member who is still holding on to a resentment.
Believe it or not Joe, I have made apologies in certain cases. Even
some financial amends.I think it has to be considered on a case by case
basis. Usually, little more than an apology is needed.
However, I dont think I have to go search through old police records
and find the owner of a car I stole in 1968 and re-imburse him for his
loss. I think your not quite right in the head if you believe that.
THE NATURE OF TRUE LOVE DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO BE LASHED INTO THE
IMPOSSIBLE AGONY OF "MAKING UP" FOR ALL YOUR PAST MISTAKES.
You either see it or you dont.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:34 pm |
| >>>If you ask me how I know, I would just tell you God has revealed it to
>
>
> Joe, you either see or you dont.
>
> There are times when I think an apology to someone is in order.Perhaps
> more than apology in certain circumstances. However, forgiveness or
> even sobriety doesnt depend on it. Amends, however, in the sense of
> trying to undo or right every wrong you ever did is silly. You either
> see it or you dont.
>
> I've posted this before.
>
I would agree taht you either get it or you don't.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Frankly, it ain't about them. I didn't feel as though my burden was
lifted until I became willing to make amends.
>
> Now Joe, you either see it or you dont. Yes, it conflicts with what
> youve been taught in AA. However, is it true or isnt?
>
> You either see or you dont. If you dont, you have my sympathy. Maybe
> sometime in the future you will see.
>
> ******************************************************************************************************
>
> You might consider it like this. If the Governor gives you a pardon for
> every crime you ever committed, you are free from the punishment of
> the state. Your no longer required (legally) to make up for what you
> did.
>
But if my own conscience is still bothering me why shouldn't I attempt
some sort of restitution?
> In the same way, if the King of this Universe gives you a pardon, you
> are freed from the consequences of your actions.
>
In the same way...
> He doesnt give you a pardon based on the fact that you have made
> certain "Amends". He gives a pardon based on what Jesus Christ did for
> you and me and everyone else here on the list. It's the atonement of
> Christ and our faith in him that secures our pardon. Its not what you
> do.
>
I do believe that my sins were forgiven when Jesus sacrificed himself.
However, in order to assuage the guilt I felt over the way I treated
some folks I had to take things a step further.
Either you get it or you don't.
> Search the scriptures to more fully understand the mystery.
>
> All that being said I think there are some times when apologies (if you
> consider apologies amends) are a very good idea.
>
> For example, when a Father has abandoned his children its a very good
> thing to go to them and apologize for you actions. Or perhaps amends to
> another family member who is still holding on to a resentment.
>
> Believe it or not Joe, I have made apologies in certain cases. Even
> some financial amends.I think it has to be considered on a case by case
> basis. Usually, little more than an apology is needed.
>
> However, I dont think I have to go search through old police records
> and find the owner of a car I stole in 1968 and re-imburse him for his
> loss. I think your not quite right in the head if you believe that.
>
I understand you may have some folks on your list that you would rather
not face again. Perhaps this guy and maybe a few others (judging by
your story) and that makes it very tempting to take the easier softer
way, but until you make things right within your own mind and heart you
will carry that little spark of doubt that causes all your disquiet.
The disquiet that leads to your behavior on this newsgroup.
>
> THE NATURE OF TRUE LOVE DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO BE LASHED INTO THE
> IMPOSSIBLE AGONY OF "MAKING UP" FOR ALL YOUR PAST MISTAKES.
>
> You either see it or you dont.
>
You either see it or you don't...
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> I would agree taht you either get it or you don't.
>
>
>
> Frankly, it ain't about them. I didn't feel as though my burden was
> lifted until I became willing to make amends.
>
>
>
> But if my own conscience is still bothering me why shouldn't I attempt
> some sort of restitution?
>
>
>
> In the same way...
>
>
> I do believe that my sins were forgiven when Jesus sacrificed himself.
>
> However, in order to assuage the guilt I felt over the way I treated
> some folks I had to take things a step further.
>
> Either you get it or you don't.
>
>
> I understand you may have some folks on your list that you would rather
> not face again. Perhaps this guy and maybe a few others (judging by
> your story) and that makes it very tempting to take the easier softer
> way, but until you make things right within your own mind and heart you
> will carry that little spark of doubt that causes all your disquiet.
>
> The disquiet that leads to your behavior on this newsgroup.
>
>
> You either see it or you don't...
When you repent Joe, the guilt is gone. Your no longer guilty.
You prefer to believe you have to make "amends". Your entitled but its
not Christian teaching, its AA teaching.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:34 pm |
|
> When you repent Joe, the guilt is gone. Your no longer guilty.
>
> You prefer to believe you have to make "amends". Your entitled but its
> not Christian teaching, its AA teaching.
>
With all due respect, Christianity didn't get me sober.
I tried going back to church a few times in an effort to turn my life
around. Didn't do anything for me until I got right with my conscience.
| |
| Andy F. 2006-12-06, 9:34 pm |
|
"tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1164576228.617743.143560@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> All that being said I think there are some times when apologies (if you
> consider apologies amends) are a very good idea.
>
> For example, when a Father has abandoned his children its a very good
> thing to go to them and apologize for you actions. Or perhaps amends to
> another family member who is still holding on to a resentment.
>
> Believe it or not Joe, I have made apologies in certain cases. Even
> some financial amends.I think it has to be considered on a case by case
> basis. Usually, little more than an apology is needed.
>
> However, I dont think I have to go search through old police records
> and find the owner of a car I stole in 1968 and re-imburse him for his
> loss. I think your not quite right in the head if you believe that.
>
You're attacking a strawman. AA doesn't suggest making amends for
everything - just when it's possible and except when to do so would injure
them or others.
Making amends for something you stole in 1968 is probably impossible, and
you might do more harm than good if you tried.So it probably wouldn't be
included in step 9.
>
> THE NATURE OF TRUE LOVE DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO BE LASHED INTO THE
> IMPOSSIBLE AGONY OF "MAKING UP" FOR ALL YOUR PAST MISTAKES.
>
> You either see it or you dont.
>
What AA suggests isn't impossible, and it's only agony if you're frightened
and selfish.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> With all due respect, Christianity didn't get me sober.
>
> I tried going back to church a few times in an effort to turn my life
> around. Didn't do anything for me until I got right with my conscience.
I wouldnt doubt that modern Christianity (Churchianity really) didnt
get you sober. For the most part, its singing songs and stained glass
windows. Many of the churches are sicker than AA.
The whole point of real Christianity is to get right with your
conscience. Maybe you missed that or went some place where they didnt
teach it.
Anyhow, Joe since you are claiming to be a Christian now, can't you see
how wrong the idolatry in AA is? Making your Higher power a doorknob or
a cloud. You put more credence in the Big Book than Scripture.
Christians dont do that Joe.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:34 pm |
|
> I wouldnt doubt that modern Christianity (Churchianity really) didnt
> get you sober. For the most part, its singing songs and stained glass
> windows. Many of the churches are sicker than AA.
>
>
> The whole point of real Christianity is to get right with your
> conscience. Maybe you missed that or went some place where they didnt
> teach it.
>
> Anyhow, Joe since you are claiming to be a Christian now, can't you see
> how wrong the idolatry in AA is? Making your Higher power a doorknob or
> a cloud. You put more credence in the Big Book than Scripture.
> Christians dont do that Joe.
>
I am Christian in that I believe in Jesus. I don't participate in
organized religion any more. Too hard to decide which one to grab on
to. They each say the others are wrong and *those* people are going to
hell while the folk who worship like we do are saved.
Which brings me back to:
How can you be so sure that you have it right?
There are many smart folks who believe different than you who are just
as certain that God has revealed the truth to them as well.
When I was 16 years old I thought I had everything figured out and those
who thought different just didn't get it.
When I was 18 I looked back at 16 and thought what an ignorant dork I
had been. And I knew I had been ignorant because NOW I knew every
damned thing.
That process repeated itself (symbolically) often enough that these days
about the only thing I am absolutely - without a doubt - certain about
is that I *don't* know every damned thing.
Your "idolatry" argument is a canard and has been throughly debunked.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> I am Christian in that I believe in Jesus. I don't participate in
> organized religion any more. Too hard to decide which one to grab on
> to. They each say the others are wrong and *those* people are going to
> hell while the folk who worship like we do are saved.
>
> Which brings me back to:
>
> How can you be so sure that you have it right?
>
> There are many smart folks who believe different than you who are just
> as certain that God has revealed the truth to them as well.
>
> When I was 16 years old I thought I had everything figured out and those
> who thought different just didn't get it.
>
> When I was 18 I looked back at 16 and thought what an ignorant dork I
> had been. And I knew I had been ignorant because NOW I knew every
> damned thing.
>
> That process repeated itself (symbolically) often enough that these days
> about the only thing I am absolutely - without a doubt - certain about
> is that I *don't* know every damned thing.
>
> Your "idolatry" argument is a canard and has been throughly debunked.
I dont think making your sponsor your Higher power or making the Group
your higher power has been thoroughly debunked. Those are forms of
idolatry.
Im glad you believe in Jesus, Joe, but how can you be sure your right?
Maybe its not true? Is that possible?
| |
|
| In article <Xxsah.2694$pH.1208@newsfe05.lga>, joeraisin@charter.net
says...
>
>
> I am Christian in that I believe in Jesus. I don't participate in
> organized religion any more. Too hard to decide which one to grab on
> to. They each say the others are wrong and *those* people are going to
> hell while the folk who worship like we do are saved.
>
> Which brings me back to:
>
> How can you be so sure that you have it right?
>
> There are many smart folks who believe different than you who are just
> as certain that God has revealed the truth to them as well.
>
> When I was 16 years old I thought I had everything figured out and those
> who thought different just didn't get it.
>
> When I was 18 I looked back at 16 and thought what an ignorant dork I
> had been. And I knew I had been ignorant because NOW I knew every
> damned thing.
>
> That process repeated itself (symbolically) often enough that these days
> about the only thing I am absolutely - without a doubt - certain about
> is that I *don't* know every damned thing.
>
> Your "idolatry" argument is a canard and has been throughly debunked.
>
Hey Joe, now you're not a **real** Christian.........It's amazing I
didn't stop responding to Ted sooner, nothing will ever be
satisfactory........Good luck banging your head against the wall.
| |
|
|
ByTor wrote:
> In article <Xxsah.2694$pH.1208@newsfe05.lga>, joeraisin@charter.net
> says...
>
> Hey Joe, now you're not a **real** Christian.........It's amazing I
> didn't stop responding to Ted sooner, nothing will ever be
> satisfactory........Good luck banging your head against the wall.
Its a fair question Bytor. He wants to know how I can be so sure.
He says he believes in Christ, I want to know how he can be sure of it.
Maybe he isnt sure. Anyway, its a fair question. The same one he asked
me.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:34 pm |
| >>How can you be so sure that you have it right?
>
>
> I dont think making your sponsor your Higher power or making the Group
> your higher power has been thoroughly debunked. Those are forms of
> idolatry.
>
> Im glad you believe in Jesus, Joe, but how can you be sure your right?
> Maybe its not true? Is that possible?
>
You always want a sincere discussion but then you refuse to participate.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:34 pm |
|
tedw wrote:
> ByTor wrote:
>
>
>
> Its a fair question Bytor. He wants to know how I can be so sure.
>
> He says he believes in Christ, I want to know how he can be sure of it.
> Maybe he isnt sure. Anyway, its a fair question. The same one he asked
> me.
>
Actually I do beleive in Christ. The difference betwen you and I is
that I don't tell others that they are condemned to hell if they don't
believe the same way I do.
Maybe they are right... anything is possible.
A loving God wouldn't decide between Heaven or eternal damnation based
solely upon whether or not one practiced a particular dogma or another.
How one behaves outside the church doors is much more important.
By your belief system Ghandi is currently in the fiery pit.
So I have explained how and why I believe what I believe, I now ask that
you do so as well.
As i have said, others who believe differently than you have claimed
that God has revealed the truth to them as well. They believe that they
know the truth and can feel it... how can you be so certain that they
are wrong and you are right?
"I just know" is not enough as anyone can claim that as evidence of
anything.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> You always want a sincere discussion but then you refuse to participate.
You are the one who is refusing to participate, answer the question.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
> tedw wrote:
>
>
> Actually I do beleive in Christ. The difference betwen you and I is
> that I don't tell others that they are condemned to hell if they don't
> believe the same way I do.
>
> Maybe they are right... anything is possible.
>
> A loving God wouldn't decide between Heaven or eternal damnation based
> solely upon whether or not one practiced a particular dogma or another.
>
> How one behaves outside the church doors is much more important.
>
> By your belief system Ghandi is currently in the fiery pit.
>
> So I have explained how and why I believe what I believe, I now ask that
> you do so as well.
>
> As i have said, others who believe differently than you have claimed
> that God has revealed the truth to them as well. They believe that they
> know the truth and can feel it... how can you be so certain that they
> are wrong and you are right?
>
> "I just know" is not enough as anyone can claim that as evidence of
> anything.
Just curious Joe. Under your brand of Christianity are unrepentant
Homosexuals goint to heaven?
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
> tedw wrote:
>
>
> Actually I do beleive in Christ. The difference betwen you and I is
> that I don't tell others that they are condemned to hell if they don't
> believe the same way I do.
>
> Maybe they are right... anything is possible.
>
> A loving God wouldn't decide between Heaven or eternal damnation based
> solely upon whether or not one practiced a particular dogma or another.
>
> How one behaves outside the church doors is much more important.
>
> By your belief system Ghandi is currently in the fiery pit.
>
> So I have explained how and why I believe what I believe, I now ask that
> you do so as well.
>
> As i have said, others who believe differently than you have claimed
> that God has revealed the truth to them as well. They believe that they
> know the truth and can feel it... how can you be so certain that they
> are wrong and you are right?
>
> "I just know" is not enough as anyone can claim that as evidence of
> anything.
Joe, I never said Ghandi was in Hell. Again, you are attributing things
to me which I dont believe. There is a specific Scripture that may
apply to someone like Ghandi:
Romans Chapter 2
14: When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law
requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have
the law. 15: They show that what the law requires is written on their
hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting
thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16: on that day when, according
to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus
Ghandi also had some things to say about Christ. Here:
Ghandi replied, "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ.
It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/552.htm
Overall, he was a decent sort however he did have some crazy ideas:
For example he said:
Even in June 1946, after millions of Jews had been slaughtered in the
Shoah, Gandhi was unswerving in this counsel of passive nonviolence:
"Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our
time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's
knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."
Louis Fisher, Gandhi's biographer asked him: "You mean that the Jews
should have committed collective suicide?"
Gandhi responded, "Yes, that would have been heroism."
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...lient=firefox-a
Ultimately, God decides the fate of people. I cant say what happened to
him. I can however say he had some pretty absurd ideas and , at times,
gave really bad advice.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
> tedw wrote:
>
>
> Actually I do beleive in Christ. The difference betwen you and I is
> that I don't tell others that they are condemned to hell if they don't
> believe the same way I do.
>
> Maybe they are right... anything is possible.
>
> A loving God wouldn't decide between Heaven or eternal damnation based
> solely upon whether or not one practiced a particular dogma or another.
>
> How one behaves outside the church doors is much more important.
>
> By your belief system Ghandi is currently in the fiery pit.
>
> So I have explained how and why I believe what I believe, I now ask that
> you do so as well.
>
> As i have said, others who believe differently than you have claimed
> that God has revealed the truth to them as well. They believe that they
> know the truth and can feel it... how can you be so certain that they
> are wrong and you are right?
>
> "I just know" is not enough as anyone can claim that as evidence of
> anything.
Ghandi was an interesting person. Here is a quick link to something
about Christianity and
Ghandi.
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/552.htm
However, some of his ideas were pretty bizarre, i.e., his total belief
in non-violence is pretty absurd.
According to him, war was never just, even dealing with someone like
Hitler.In fact, he was even arrested for speaking against the British
war against Hitler.
Heres some quotes:
Gandhi and World War II
http://www.triviahalloffame.com/gandhi.htm
Gandhi never quite seemed to realize that the non-violence he urged
against the British would have failed horribly if applied to the Nazis.
He urged the British to surrender, and suggested that the Czechs and
even the Jews would have been better off committing heroic mass
suicide.
Even as late as June 1946, when the extent of the Holocaust had
emerged, Gandhi told biographer Louis Fisher: "The Jews should have
offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown
themselves into the sea from cliffs."
As the Japanese advanced into Burma (now called Myanmar), there was a
real possibility of an Axis invasion of India. Gandhi thought it was
best to let the Japanese take as much of India as they wanted, and that
the best way to resist would be to "make them feel unwanted."
(In fact, the Axis was helping a buddy of Gandhi's to raise an army of
Indians that would have seized the country from the Brits, but that's
another story
**********************************************************************************************************
"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They
should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."
So, I cant say where Ghandi is, thats up to God. I can say he had some
pretty bizarre ideas. Dont you agree Joe?
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:35 pm |
| >>You always want a sincere discussion but then you refuse to participate.
>
>
> You are the one who is refusing to participate, answer the question.
>
To quote you a few posts ago, "You first."
Here, I'll even repost the discussion at the point you made you digression:
I was asking,
"How can you be so sure that you have it right?
There are many smart folks who believe different than you who are just
as certain that God has revealed the truth to them as well."
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:35 pm |
| > Joe, I never said Ghandi was in Hell. Again, you are attributing things
> to me which I dont believe. There is a specific Scripture that may
> apply to someone like Ghandi:
>
>
> Romans Chapter 2
>
> 14: When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law
> requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have
> the law. 15: They show that what the law requires is written on their
> hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting
> thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16: on that day when, according
> to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus
So there is some wiggle room after all and one doesn't have to ascribe
to your belief system to get to heaven?
What if a person were kind, generous, honest, humble and wise. What if
their daily life consisted of making the world a better place to live
for all.
What if they even went to church and worshipped Jesus by living their
lives as he said we should live them.
And what if they were practicing a homosexual lifestyle?
You contend that a kind, generous and honest person such as that would
be sent to hell for eternity by a loving God.
I contend that he/she would not.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> So there is some wiggle room after all and one doesn't have to ascribe
> to your belief system to get to heaven?
>
> What if a person were kind, generous, honest, humble and wise. What if
> their daily life consisted of making the world a better place to live
> for all.
>
> What if they even went to church and worshipped Jesus by living their
> lives as he said we should live them.
>
> And what if they were practicing a homosexual lifestyle?
>
> You contend that a kind, generous and honest person such as that would
> be sent to hell for eternity by a loving God.
>
> I contend that he/she would not.
You may contend that, but its contrary to the scripture you say you
believe in.
Its not so much a loving God sends them to hell. They send themselves
by their refusal to admit they are wrong and continuing in their sinful
lifestyle.
There will be no practising homosexuals going to heaven Joe. Scripture
is abundantly clear on that point.
, "Do you not know the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves
nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit
the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were
washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." [I Corinthians 6:9-11 NIV,
emphasis ours]
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:35 pm |
| > There will be no practising homosexuals going to heaven Joe. Scripture
> is abundantly clear on that point.
>
>
> , "Do you not know the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
> not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
> adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves
> nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit
> the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were
> washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord
> Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." [I Corinthians 6:9-11 NIV,
> emphasis ours]
>
What does "emphasis ours" mean?
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> What does "emphasis ours" mean?
Playing dumb Joe? Emphasis ours when used in this way means words that
are bolded, I believe. Apparently print versions of the NIV have this
feature.
You do note, I hope, that the Scripture directly contradicts your
belief. Thats why you harm people by being accepting of Homosexuality,
as apparently you are. Very unchristian Joe.
| |
|
|
tedw wrote:
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> Playing dumb Joe? Emphasis ours when used in this way means words that
> are bolded, I believe. Apparently print versions of the NIV have this
> feature.
>
> You do note, I hope, that the Scripture directly contradicts your
> belief. Thats why you harm people by being accepting of Homosexuality,
> as apparently you are. Very unchristian Joe.
Cat got your tongue ?
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:35 pm |
|
tedw wrote:
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
>
>
> Playing dumb Joe? Emphasis ours when used in this way means words that
> are bolded, I believe. Apparently print versions of the NIV have this
> feature.
>
> You do note, I hope, that the Scripture directly contradicts your
> belief. Thats why you harm people by being accepting of Homosexuality,
> as apparently you are. Very unchristian Joe.
>
Actually I wasn't. I had never seen that in a bible before.
So I checked some other online sources and found it several times.
As far as your verse goes, it includes homosexuals in that particular
translation.
I Corinthians 6:9:
The passage: In his first epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul lists
many activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of
God (heaven). Robertson's Word Studies refers to this passage as: "a
solemn roll call of the damned even if some of their names are on the
church roll in Corinth whether officers or ordinary members."
The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:
1 Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours)
This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English
versions of the Bible that we have analyzed. The two activities of
interest here have been variously translated as:
effeminate. In the English language, this covers a wide range of male
behavior such as being unmanly, lacking virility. One might think of the
characters "John," the receptionist on NYPD Blue, or "Jack" on Will and
Grace.
homosexuals, variously described as:
"men who practice homosexuality," (ESV);
"those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified);
"abusers of themselves with men," (KJV);
"practicing homosexuals," (NAB);
"homosexuals," (NASB, CSB, NKJ, The Great Book: The New Testament in
Plain English);
"homosexual perversion," (NEB);
"homosexual offenders," (NIV);
"liers with mankind," (Rhiems); and
"homosexual perverts." (TEV)
Many of these entries are restricted to gay males; lesbians are often
excluded. Unfortunately, the term "homosexual" is commonly defined in
two different ways: as a behavior (engaging in same-sex activity) or as
a sexual orientation (being sexually attracted only to members of the
same sex). Most of the biblical translations appear to refer to behavior
rather than orientaiton.
male prostitutes, also described as "men kept for unnatural purposes."
It is not clear whether the term "male prostitutes" (NIV, NRSV, CSB) is
restricted to homosexuals or may also include men who are heterosexual
prostitutes.
catamites, also described as "boy prostitute." This is a young male who
is kept as a sexual partner of an adult male. (Jerusalem Bible, NAB,
James Moffatt)
pederasts: male adults who sexually abuse boys; an abusive pedophile (an
adult who molests young children) or abusive hebephile (an adult who
molests post-pubertal teenagers).
perverts: a person engaged in some undefined sexual perversion.
(Phillips, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)
sodomites: a name derived from the city of Sodom which is described in
Genesis 19. (NRSV, NKJ). The men of the city are described as wanting to
rape male visitors; many Christians interpret this as a blanket
condemnation of all homosexual behavior.
So, once again (insert sound of butting head against wall...)
What makes you and the New International Version right and the King
James Version wrong?
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:35 pm |
|
> Cat got your tongue ?
>
No, but quite a few Christmas decorations had my attention.
Then my lovely wife and I shared some cuddle time with some hot
chocolate and listening to the "Sounds of the Season" channel on cable.
I do have a life outside the ng.
That is primarily because since I have made amends whenever possible my
conscience is clear and I have no reason to obsess over anything.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
> tedw wrote:
>
> Actually I wasn't. I had never seen that in a bible before.
>
> So I checked some other online sources and found it several times.
>
> As far as your verse goes, it includes homosexuals in that particular
> translation.
>
> I Corinthians 6:9:
>
> The passage: In his first epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul lists
> many activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of
> God (heaven). Robertson's Word Studies refers to this passage as: "a
> solemn roll call of the damned even if some of their names are on the
> church roll in Corinth whether officers or ordinary members."
>
> The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:
>
> 1 Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit
> the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
> nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
> Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
> extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours)
>
> This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English
> versions of the Bible that we have analyzed. The two activities of
> interest here have been variously translated as:
>
> effeminate. In the English language, this covers a wide range of male
> behavior such as being unmanly, lacking virility. One might think of the
> characters "John," the receptionist on NYPD Blue, or "Jack" on Will and
> Grace.
>
> homosexuals, variously described as:
>
> "men who practice homosexuality," (ESV);
> "those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified);
> "abusers of themselves with men," (KJV);
> "practicing homosexuals," (NAB);
> "homosexuals," (NASB, CSB, NKJ, The Great Book: The New Testament in
> Plain English);
> "homosexual perversion," (NEB);
> "homosexual offenders," (NIV);
> "liers with mankind," (Rhiems); and
> "homosexual perverts." (TEV)
>
> Many of these entries are restricted to gay males; lesbians are often
> excluded. Unfortunately, the term "homosexual" is commonly defined in
> two different ways: as a behavior (engaging in same-sex activity) or as
> a sexual orientation (being sexually attracted only to members of the
> same sex). Most of the biblical translations appear to refer to behavior
> rather than orientaiton.
>
> male prostitutes, also described as "men kept for unnatural purposes."
> It is not clear whether the term "male prostitutes" (NIV, NRSV, CSB) is
> restricted to homosexuals or may also include men who are heterosexual
> prostitutes.
>
> catamites, also described as "boy prostitute." This is a young male who
> is kept as a sexual partner of an adult male. (Jerusalem Bible, NAB,
> James Moffatt)
>
> pederasts: male adults who sexually abuse boys; an abusive pedophile (an
> adult who molests young children) or abusive hebephile (an adult who
> molests post-pubertal teenagers).
>
> perverts: a person engaged in some undefined sexual perversion.
> (Phillips, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)
>
> sodomites: a name derived from the city of Sodom which is described in
> Genesis 19. (NRSV, NKJ). The men of the city are described as wanting to
> rape male visitors; many Christians interpret this as a blanket
> condemnation of all homosexual behavior.
>
> So, once again (insert sound of butting head against wall...)
>
> What makes you and the New International Version right and the King
> James Version wrong?
You really bend over backwards to try and make wrong seem right dont
you?
"Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto
uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who
changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the
creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For
this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their
women have changed the natural use into that use which is against
nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of
the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with
men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the
recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have
God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to
do those things which are not convenient. Being filled with all
iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy,
murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers, detractors, hateful
to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things,
disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute: without affection, without
fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not
understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not
only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do
them." (Romans 1: 24-32)
Its clear as a bell Joe. Your problem is your so identified with a
liberal apostate Organization
(AA) that you are defensive and protective of it, even when the things
it does are contrary to the religion you say you believe in. You even
go so far as to do mental gymnastics and make it seem as if the
Scripture doesnt say what it clearly says.
I dont find those to be the actions of a sincere and honest person.
There is no such thing as not being able to see this Joe. There is only
stubborness and a refusal to see.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> No, but quite a few Christmas decorations had my attention.
>
> Then my lovely wife and I shared some cuddle time with some hot
> chocolate and listening to the "Sounds of the Season" channel on cable.
>
> I do have a life outside the ng.
>
> That is primarily because since I have made amends whenever possible my
> conscience is clear and I have no reason to obsess over anything.
Are you going to make amends to the people you have possibly influenced
into thinking homosexuality is ok?
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:35 pm |
|
tedw wrote:
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
>
>
> Are you going to make amends to the people you have possibly influenced
> into thinking homosexuality is ok?
>
No need
| |
| Tim and Lisa 2006-12-06, 9:35 pm |
|
"JoeRaisin" <joeraisin@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3L4bh.48$Xw2.6@newsfe06.lga...
>
>
> tedw wrote:
> No need
Exactly No Need. ;o)
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:35 pm |
|
tedw wrote:
>
>
>
> You really bend over backwards to try and make wrong seem right dont
> you?
>
>
>
> "Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto
> uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who
> changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the
> creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For
> this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their
> women have changed the natural use into that use which is against
> nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of
> the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with
> men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the
> recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have
> God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to
> do those things which are not convenient. Being filled with all
> iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy,
> murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers, detractors, hateful
> to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things,
> disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute: without affection, without
> fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not
> understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not
> only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do
> them." (Romans 1: 24-32)
>
>
My bible reads:
24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts
desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each
other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they
worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator
himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God
abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against
the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.
27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women,
burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men,
and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty
they deserved.
*** note "...they suffered 'within themselves' the penalty..."
The passage is about guilt. It does not say that homosexuality is a sin.
28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them
to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be
done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin,
greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior,
and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud,
and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their
parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are
heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that
those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse
yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
*** note "Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin,
greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior,
and gossip."
Shucks... it forgot to mention homosexuality. So I guess it is not a
form of wickedness.
> Its clear as a bell Joe. Your problem is your so identified with a
> liberal apostate Organization
> (AA) that you are defensive and protective of it, even when the things
> it does are contrary to the religion you say you believe in. You even
> go so far as to do mental gymnastics and make it seem as if the
> Scripture doesnt say what it clearly says.
>
I know plenty of Christian men of the cloth who would disagree with you.
No mental gymnastics needed... two minutes on google.
How do we know that it isn't you who is trying to make it seem that
scripture says what it really doesn't say?
> I dont find those to be the actions of a sincere and honest person.
>
Again, I know many to whom God has revealed the truth and who would
disagree with you.
> There is no such thing as not being able to see this Joe. There is only
> stubborness and a refusal to see.
>
Perhaps I could understand it better if you could explain why you are
right and others, who are just as convinced as you, are wrong.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
> tedw wrote:
> My bible reads:
>
> 24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts
> desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each
> other's bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they
> worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator
> himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God
> abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against
> the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.
> 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women,
> burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men,
> and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty
> they deserved.
>
>
> *** note "...they suffered 'within themselves' the penalty..."
>
> The passage is about guilt. It does not say that homosexuality is a sin.
>
> 28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them
> to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be
> done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin,
> greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior,
> and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud,
> and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their
> parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are
> heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God's justice requires that
> those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse
> yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
>
>
> *** note "Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin,
> greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior,
> and gossip."
>
> Shucks... it forgot to mention homosexuality. So I guess it is not a
> form of wickedness.
>
>
>
>
> I know plenty of Christian men of the cloth who would disagree with you.
>
> No mental gymnastics needed... two minutes on google.
>
> How do we know that it isn't you who is trying to make it seem that
> scripture says what it really doesn't say?
>
>
> Again, I know many to whom God has revealed the truth and who would
> disagree with you.
>
>
>
> Perhaps I could understand it better if you could explain why you are
> right and others, who are just as convinced as you, are wrong.
Joe, you have my sympathy. You just dont want to see.
| |
|
|
tedw wrote:
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
>
> Joe, you have my sympathy. You just dont want to see.
I probably shoud say you have my pity. You just dont want to see. I
hope the Creator opens your eyes.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:35 pm |
|
>
>
>
> Joe, you have my sympathy. You just dont want to see.
>
Perhaps it is you who does not want to see
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:35 pm |
| >>>Perhaps I could understand it better if you could explain why you are
>
>
> I probably shoud say you have my pity. You just dont want to see. I
> hope the Creator opens your eyes.
>
Perhaps he has and it is your eyes that are closed
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> Perhaps he has and it is your eyes that are closed
No.Do you often try and get people to doubt what they know is right?
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female;
it is an abomination."
| |
| Stuart 2006-12-06, 9:35 pm |
|
"tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1164819391.112845.325280@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> No.Do you often try and get people to doubt what they know is right?
>
> Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female;
> it is an abomination."
"Who am I to try to run myself or anyone else?"
Good question tedw. Why don't you heed that advice? I think Joe's original
question sailed clear over your head, as usual.
| |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
> "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1164819391.112845.325280@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> "Who am I to try to run myself or anyone else?"
>
> Good question tedw. Why don't you heed that advice? I think Joe's original
> question sailed clear over your head, as usual.
Who am I trying to run Stuart?
| |
| Stuart 2006-12-06, 9:35 pm |
|
"tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1164846096.233350.102770@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stuart wrote:
>
> Who am I trying to run Stuart?
Well, lets start with everyone in AA. Then comes the gays. Need I go
on?.....
| |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
> "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1164846096.233350.102770@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Well, lets start with everyone in AA. Then comes the gays. Need I go
> on?.....
Yes go on. Exactly how am I trying to run everyone in AA, and how am I
trying to "run" gays.
If you look closely, all I am doing is speaking up about right and
wrong.
If you saw your sleep walking brother walking towards a cliff, dont you
thing the right thing would be to warn him?
Thats all I doing. Unfortunately, many prefer to remain asleep.
| |
| sharx35 2006-12-06, 9:35 pm |
|
"Stuart" <drsbh@NOSPAMtelus.net> wrote in message
news:JOobh.5069$hn.1987@edtnps82...
>
> "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1164819391.112845.325280@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> "Who am I to try to run myself or anyone else?"
>
> Good question tedw. Why don't you heed that advice? I think Joe's original
> question sailed clear over your head, as usual.
Those who feel that they HAVE to pack fudge because it is their NATURAL
sexual outlet (in their opinion) will probably continue no matter what the
health risks, to them and to others.
>
>
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:35 pm |
|
>
>
> No.Do you often try and get people to doubt what they know is right?
About the same as you.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> About the same as you.
Well, Joe, I dont think the discussion is going to go anywhere. You
want to tell people Homosexuality is ok then answer to God. He says its
not through his prophets.
And He will tell you the same thing if you will listen.
Be Still and Know.
| |
| Stuart 2006-12-06, 9:36 pm |
|
"tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1164862044.167477.197400@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> Well, Joe, I dont think the discussion is going to go anywhere. You
> want to tell people Homosexuality is ok then answer to God. He says its
> not through his prophets.
> And He will tell you the same thing if you will listen.
>
> Be Still and Know.
What pisses folks off tedw, is when you figure its your "job" to tell others
where they are going wrong. Abit of that is appropriate, the amount you do
is not.
| |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
> "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1164862044.167477.197400@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> What pisses folks off tedw, is when you figure its your "job" to tell others
> where they are going wrong. Abit of that is appropriate, the amount you do
> is not.
How much is appropriate Stuart?
| |
| Stuart 2006-12-06, 9:36 pm |
|
"tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1164933098.200915.93870@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stuart wrote:
>
> How much is appropriate Stuart?
The Pope made an interesting comment in Turkey yesterday. He stated that his
church had no desire to wish their beliefs on anyone at all.
Your rants on homos and AA traditions are highly inappropriate tedw, by
virtually any social standard of decency in a free and democratic society.
| |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
> "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1164933098.200915.93870@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Pope made an interesting comment in Turkey yesterday. He stated that his
> church had no desire to wish their beliefs on anyone at all.
> Your rants on homos and AA traditions are highly inappropriate tedw, by
> virtually any social standard of decency in a free and democratic society.
Let me see if I got this right Stuart. My problem is I figure its my
job to tell people where they are going wrong and this is wrong.
Apparently though this standard doesnt apply to you though since you
feel its your job to tell where I am going wrong and this seems to be
ok. Is that right? In other words, its ok for you to tell me Im wrong
but its not right for me to do the same. Is there a wee bit of a
contraciction there?
As far as the Pope's statement, hes a bit of a politician. The Church
as an organization certainly does speak up about its beliefs and hold
positions. For example, the Church feels abortion is wrong and evil and
encourages its members not to do it and work against it in society. Its
also opposed to homosexuality. Its opposed to gay marriage also. I
would say those kind of positions are "wishing their beliefs' on
someone, wouldnt you.
Still waiting for you to tell me how much is appropriate.
| |
| Stuart 2006-12-06, 9:36 pm |
|
"tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1164992736.516568.296510@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stuart wrote:
>
>
> Let me see if I got this right Stuart. My problem is I figure its my
> job to tell people where they are going wrong and this is wrong.
> Apparently though this standard doesnt apply to you though since you
> feel its your job to tell where I am going wrong and this seems to be
> ok. Is that right? In other words, its ok for you to tell me Im wrong
> but its not right for me to do the same. Is there a wee bit of a
> contraciction there?
What a buncha double talk.
> As far as the Pope's statement, hes a bit of a politician. The Church
> as an organization certainly does speak up about its beliefs and hold
> positions. For example, the Church feels abortion is wrong and evil and
> encourages its members not to do it and work against it in society. Its
> also opposed to homosexuality. Its opposed to gay marriage also. I
> would say those kind of positions are "wishing their beliefs' on
> someone, wouldnt you.
Oh right, you are far more qualified to speak on matters Christian than the
Pope
>
> Still waiting for you to tell me how much is appropriate.
far less than you currently do tedw.
>
| |
|
|
Stuart wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1164992736.516568.296510@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> What a buncha double talk.
>
>
>
>
> Oh right, you are far more qualified to speak on matters Christian than the
> Pope
>
>
> far less than you currently do tedw.
>
Papal infallibility not a popular position these days, even in the
church.
Is once a day too much to express myself?
| |
| Stuart 2006-12-06, 9:36 pm |
|
"tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1164995944.082253.46970@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stuart wrote:
>
> Papal infallibility not a popular position these days, even in the
> church.
The Pope went to school to learn about Christianity tedw. Has nothing to do
with fallibility. I was only referring to his rather extensive education of
matters Christian
> Is once a day too much to express myself?
Rather obsessive considering you aren't gay yourself tedw
| |
| UseNet Guy 2006-12-06, 9:36 pm |
| "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Is once a day too much to express myself?
Yes. Go away. Far, far, away. Then take that gun you brandished in the
photo and make the world a better place: blow your brains out.
| |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
> "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1164995944.082253.46970@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Pope went to school to learn about Christianity tedw. Has nothing to do
> with fallibility. I was only referring to his rather extensive education of
> matters Christian
>
>
> Rather obsessive considering you aren't gay yourself tedw
What school did Jesus go to in order to learn about Christianity?
| |
| Stuart 2006-12-06, 9:36 pm |
|
"tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1164998580.164301.9750@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stuart wrote:
>
>
> What school did Jesus go to in order to learn about Christianity?
Which is a really goofy question tedw, if you hold the view that Jesus was
no mere mortal.
| |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
> "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1164998580.164301.9750@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> Which is a really goofy question tedw, if you hold the view that Jesus was
> no mere mortal.
What school did Peter go to learn about Christianity? I thought he was
a simple fisherman.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:36 pm |
| > Let me see if I got this right Stuart. My problem is I figure its my
> job to tell people where they are going wrong and this is wrong.
> Apparently though this standard doesnt apply to you though since you
> feel its your job to tell where I am going wrong and this seems to be
> ok. Is that right? In other words, its ok for you to tell me Im wrong
> but its not right for me to do the same. Is there a wee bit of a
> contraciction there?
>
The difference between you and me is that when I speak of my beliefs I
usually state that it is my opinion. I realize that there are other
points of view and other beliefs that are just as heart felt and valid
as my own. I may believe someone is wrong but if I feel a need to say
so it is with the qualifier that it is my opinion - either stated or
implied by previous comments.
I am still waiting for you to explain how you are so certain that you
have it right.
Do you believe that all Jews are going to hell - even the ones who are
good and decent folks?
Do you believe that all Muslims are going to hell - even the ones who
are good and decent folks?
Do you believe that all Hindus are going to hell - even the ones who are
good and decent folks?
Do you believe that all followers of Confucianism, Taoism and Shinto are
going to hell - even the ones who are good and decent folks?
I probably don't even need to ask about Wiccans...
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> The difference between you and me is that when I speak of my beliefs I
> usually state that it is my opinion. I realize that there are other
> points of view and other beliefs that are just as heart felt and valid
> as my own. I may believe someone is wrong but if I feel a need to say
> so it is with the qualifier that it is my opinion - either stated or
> implied by previous comments.
>
> I am still waiting for you to explain how you are so certain that you
> have it right.
>
> Do you believe that all Jews are going to hell - even the ones who are
> good and decent folks?
>
> Do you believe that all Muslims are going to hell - even the ones who
> are good and decent folks?
>
> Do you believe that all Hindus are going to hell - even the ones who are
> good and decent folks?
>
> Do you believe that all followers of Confucianism, Taoism and Shinto are
> going to hell - even the ones who are good and decent folks?
>
> I probably don't even need to ask about Wiccans...
Joe
We been over this ground before. The Apostle had this to say on the
subject.
Romans Chapter 2
14: When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law
requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have
the law. 15: They show that what the law requires is written on their
hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting
thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16: on that day when, according
to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus
Im not going to argue with that. However, I think its rare. If someone
of another religion lives what is right I have no problem with that.
However, there are some delicate spiritual priniciples taught in
Christianity that are not taught anywhere else with such clarity.
You cannot be resentful or hateful towards people in the slightest and
expect to have right standing with God. So when people are mean and
cruel and you judge them, you are out of order no matter how righteous
your surface behavior may be. "Forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive
those who tresspass against us" in other words.
And I think a person of another religion with a good heart would leap
for joy inwardly upon reading the Christian scripture. As Ghandi said,
" I dont reject your Christ, I love your Christ"
For the record Joe, I am not saying all people of different religions
are going to hell. I dont know that.. Pauls scripture seems to
contradict it.
All that being said Joe, it is not my opinion that Jesus was the
Messiah sent by God to reconcile men to God. Its a fact. And some
people, in some mysterious way not fully understood by me, may be saved
by Him without fully realizing in their heart who it is who is saving
them. I think it is within the realm of possibility that a person could
even being a Christian without realizing it.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:36 pm |
| > All that being said Joe, it is not my opinion that Jesus was the
> Messiah sent by God to reconcile men to God. Its a fact. And some
> people, in some mysterious way not fully understood by me, may be saved
> by Him without fully realizing in their heart who it is who is saving
> them. I think it is within the realm of possibility that a person could
> even being a Christian without realizing it.
>
It isn't the question of whether or not Jesus was the Messiah (which is
a belief rather than an opinion) that I was referring to when I said
that it would be more appropriate to qualify statements as your opinion.
It is your opinion that those who translate and interpret the bible as
saying homosexuals cannot be saved unless they stop acting in homosexual
ways are right and that those who think or believe otherwise are wrong.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> It isn't the question of whether or not Jesus was the Messiah (which is
> a belief rather than an opinion) that I was referring to when I said
> that it would be more appropriate to qualify statements as your opinion.
>
> It is your opinion that those who translate and interpret the bible as
> saying homosexuals cannot be saved unless they stop acting in homosexual
> ways are right and that those who think or believe otherwise are wrong.
Thats not opinion either Joe. Unrepentant homosexuals arent going to
Heaven.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:36 pm |
| >>It is your opinion that those who translate and interpret the bible as
>
>
> Thats not opinion either Joe. Unrepentant homosexuals arent going to
> Heaven.
>
According to those whom you beleive to have it right.
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> According to those whom you beleive to have it right.
According to God
| |
| Stuart 2006-12-06, 9:37 pm |
|
"tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1165016949.975392.256940@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stuart wrote:
>
> What school did Peter go to learn about Christianity? I thought he was
> a simple fisherman.
He learned about CHRISTianity form CHRIST himself, moron. The Pope, insofar
as I am aware, did not personally meet Christ. He had to go to school to
learn about the life of Christ. Ate from the "tree of knowledge", but then
again, what would tedw know about that approach?
| |
| ScottyFLL 2006-12-06, 9:37 pm |
|
tedw wrote:
> What school did Jesus go to in order to learn about Christianity?
Jesus was not a Christian.
| |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
> "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1165016949.975392.256940@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> He learned about CHRISTianity form CHRIST himself, moron. The Pope, insofar
> as I am aware, did not personally meet Christ. He had to go to school to
> learn about the life of Christ. Ate from the "tree of knowledge", but then
> again, what would tedw know about that approach?
What school did Paul go to in order to learn about Christianity?
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:37 pm |
|
tedw wrote:
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
>
>
> According to God
>
As his words were translated by those you agree with
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
> tedw wrote:
>
> As his words were translated by those you agree with
The Spirit testifies to the the truth of scripture.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:37 pm |
| > The Spirit testifies to the the truth of scripture.
>
Which translation?
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> Which translation?
It testifies to the Truth of any translation, and there can be
translator errors. The Spirit of Truth will testify to that too.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-12-06, 9:37 pm |
|
tedw wrote:
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
>
>
> It testifies to the Truth of any translation, and there can be
> translator errors. The Spirit of Truth will testify to that too.
>
I guess there is no need ask where you believe the Spirit of Truth comes
down on the differing veiws of homosexuality...
| |
| Dylin® 2006-12-06, 9:37 pm |
| tedw wrote:
>
> Thats not opinion either Joe. Unrepentant homosexuals arent going to
> Heaven.
Neither are you Ted, unless you're one the chosen 144,000.
Since when you're dead, you're dead, I guess you'll have to wait until
the resurrection to find out if you were meek enough to inherit the
Earth.
Read your Bible man. Get your facts straight.
--
Dylin
|
| |
|
|