God hates democrats?

[jyates]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jyates
hehe.....you'll have to give me the verse on that paraphrase!

No verse, but checkout his discussions of Meat sacrificed to Idols.

That's found in 1 Corinthians Chapter 8 verses 4 through 13 and it deals
with the Christian's freedom to eat meat that has been offered to idols
(an issue in the early church)
but Paul says even though Christians know there is nothing wrong with the
meat since it was actually offered to an idol and not to the one and true God,
that he would not eat it in the presence of a "weak" brother or one that
has a problem with it (lack of spiritual maturity) because it would be an offense
to the weaker brother in Christ.

Not actually teaching to "mind thine own business" but rather to be concerned
about the "weaker" brethen in the body of Christ.

It teaches both actually.

Expound on how it teaches "mind thine own business" please.

Each side of the equation(the 2 viewpoints) has a position: 1 has the position of "don't eat meat sacrificed to idols", the other, "there is nothing wrong with that meat". Certainly, the one with no problem with it shouldn't cause the other to "sin", but OTOH, the one with a problem with it shouldn't loook down on the other. In short, "Mind your own business", "Be true to yourself", "Follow your Conscience", take your pick.

Paul was talking about the responsibility of the stronger spiritually person to not offend
(cause to stumble) a weaker spiritual brother in the body of Christ (the Church) (and I'm
not talking about the Catholic church only). Being more spiritually mature brings upon
a greater responsibility. But in no way does it even suggest that we are to look the
other way "and mine our own business" if we know a brother is sinning.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jyates
hehe.....you'll have to give me the verse on that paraphrase!

No verse, but checkout his discussions of Meat sacrificed to Idols.

That's found in 1 Corinthians Chapter 8 verses 4 through 13 and it deals
with the Christian's freedom to eat meat that has been offered to idols
(an issue in the early church)
but Paul says even though Christians know there is nothing wrong with the
meat since it was actually offered to an idol and not to the one and true God,
that he would not eat it in the presence of a "weak" brother or one that
has a problem with it (lack of spiritual maturity) because it would be an offense
to the weaker brother in Christ.

Not actually teaching to "mind thine own business" but rather to be concerned
about the "weaker" brethen in the body of Christ.

It teaches both actually.

Expound on how it teaches "mind thine own business" please.

Each side of the equation(the 2 viewpoints) has a position: 1 has the position of "don't eat meat sacrificed to idols", the other, "there is nothing wrong with that meat". Certainly, the one with no problem with it shouldn't cause the other to "sin", but OTOH, the one with a problem with it shouldn't loook down on the other. In short, "Mind your own business", "Be true to yourself", "Follow your Conscience", take your pick.

Paul was talking about the responsibility of the stronger spiritually person to not offend
(cause to stumble) a weaker spiritual brother in the body of Christ (the Church) (and I'm
not talking about the Catholic church only). Being more spiritually mature brings upon
a greater responsibility. But in no way does it even suggest that we are to look the
other way "and mine our own business" if we know a brother is sinning.

We have come full circle back to my original point, Interpretation. You say toe mah toe, I say toe mate oh.

So who was right, the Sacrificed Meat eaters or the Shunners? Both were right, for the eating of said Meat had a certain affect on their Conscience. Due to that affect, it was pointless for one group to try and Correct the other, let them act according to their Conscience. Hence, "Mind thine own business" respecting the Others position, of course.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It teaches that abortion is wrong, that it is murder. Murder is a mortal sin, capable of sending a soul to hell. Advocating murder through political support is close enough to murder for it to be a mortal sin (leading others into sin maybe?). Therefore, no communion.

EDIT: Gen 38:8-10. Onan was killed for not impregnating his brother's wife.

Yes, but what if the only two political parties are one which espouses abortion (bad, sinful, etc) and social programs (good, godly, etc) and the environment (stewards of the earth and all), whereas the other political party espouses no abortion (good) and taking money away from the poor to give to the rich (very bad) and war (bad without just cause)?

Basically both of the parties would be evil...does that mean the Catholic Church won't give communion to anyone who votes?

Obviously my examples were a bit extreme and any of those points can be argued.

As for the Onan verse, it is generally acknowledged that his sin was not impregnating the wife as commanded, rather than masturbation per se.

 

[jyates]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jyates
hehe.....you'll have to give me the verse on that paraphrase!

No verse, but checkout his discussions of Meat sacrificed to Idols.

That's found in 1 Corinthians Chapter 8 verses 4 through 13 and it deals
with the Christian's freedom to eat meat that has been offered to idols
(an issue in the early church)
but Paul says even though Christians know there is nothing wrong with the
meat since it was actually offered to an idol and not to the one and true God,
that he would not eat it in the presence of a "weak" brother or one that
has a problem with it (lack of spiritual maturity) because it would be an offense
to the weaker brother in Christ.

Not actually teaching to "mind thine own business" but rather to be concerned
about the "weaker" brethen in the body of Christ.

It teaches both actually.

Expound on how it teaches "mind thine own business" please.

Each side of the equation(the 2 viewpoints) has a position: 1 has the position of "don't eat meat sacrificed to idols", the other, "there is nothing wrong with that meat". Certainly, the one with no problem with it shouldn't cause the other to "sin", but OTOH, the one with a problem with it shouldn't loook down on the other. In short, "Mind your own business", "Be true to yourself", "Follow your Conscience", take your pick.

Paul was talking about the responsibility of the stronger spiritually person to not offend
(cause to stumble) a weaker spiritual brother in the body of Christ (the Church) (and I'm
not talking about the Catholic church only). Being more spiritually mature brings upon
a greater responsibility. But in no way does it even suggest that we are to look the
other way "and mine our own business" if we know a brother is sinning.

We have come full circle back to my original point, Interpretation. You say toe mah toe, I say toe mate oh.

So who was right, the Sacrificed Meat eaters or the Shunners? Both were right, for the eating of said Meat had a certain affect on their Conscience. Due to that affect, it was pointless for one group to try and Correct the other, let them act according to their Conscience. Hence, "Mind thine own business" respecting the Others position, of course.

We are urged over and over again in the scriptures to care for those in the body
of Christ and also those who are not. Christ himself never turned anyone away
who was seeking for him but he didn't "make" anyone believe or follow him. It's
a person's freewill choice but as with any choice there are always consequences
of what we do or don't do.

Interpretation of the scriptures usually isn't that difficult if people are acquainted with the
scripture in whole and understand the pricnciples being taught. Most people who don't
want to agree with the truth taught in the scriptures are the ones who say that it's open
to different interpretations depending on who the person who is trying to understand it is.
This is not true, the truth is the truth and who we are or what we "think" or "feel" doesn't
change the truth.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your comment

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It teaches that abortion is wrong, that it is murder. Murder is a mortal sin, capable of sending a soul to hell. Advocating murder through political support is close enough to murder for it to be a mortal sin (leading others into sin maybe?). Therefore, no communion.

EDIT: Gen 38:8-10. Onan was killed for not impregnating his brother's wife.

Yes, but what if the only two political parties are one which espouses abortion (bad, sinful, etc) and social programs (good, godly, etc) and the environment (stewards of the earth and all), whereas the other political party espouses no abortion (good) and taking money away from the poor to give to the rich (very bad) and war (bad without just cause)?

Basically both of the parties would be evil...does that mean the Catholic Church won't give communion to anyone who votes?

Obviously my examples were a bit extreme and any of those points can be argued.

As for the Onan verse, it is generally acknowledged that his sin was not impregnating the wife as commanded, rather than masturbation per se.

His brother's wife, IIRC.

Anyways, there are more than 2 parties.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It teaches that abortion is wrong, that it is murder. Murder is a mortal sin, capable of sending a soul to hell. Advocating murder through political support is close enough to murder for it to be a mortal sin (leading others into sin maybe?). Therefore, no communion.

EDIT: Gen 38:8-10. Onan was killed for not impregnating his brother's wife.

Yes, but what if the only two political parties are one which espouses abortion (bad, sinful, etc) and social programs (good, godly, etc) and the environment (stewards of the earth and all), whereas the other political party espouses no abortion (good) and taking money away from the poor to give to the rich (very bad) and war (bad without just cause)?

Basically both of the parties would be evil...does that mean the Catholic Church won't give communion to anyone who votes?

Obviously my examples were a bit extreme and any of those points can be argued.

As for the Onan verse, it is generally acknowledged that his sin was not impregnating the wife as commanded, rather than masturbation per se.

1) I agree, neither Party(or any Political Party for that matter) represent a Morally bulletproof position. A voter needs to decide based on more than 1 issue or on what issue is most urgent(which of course for some might involve Abortion).

2) I disagree with both of you. The story of Onan has no bearing on Abortion nor does it have anything to do with Masturbation.

Onan, as N0cmonkey pointed out, was legally obligated to impregnate his late brothers wife. His "sin" was avoidance of accomplishing the obligation(pulling out) and taking advantage of the situation(free kitty). His attitude dishonoured his Brother and his Sister-in-Law.

For something considered so vile by some, is there even 1 direct mention of Masturbation in Scripture?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jyates
hehe.....you'll have to give me the verse on that paraphrase!

No verse, but checkout his discussions of Meat sacrificed to Idols.

That's found in 1 Corinthians Chapter 8 verses 4 through 13 and it deals
with the Christian's freedom to eat meat that has been offered to idols
(an issue in the early church)
but Paul says even though Christians know there is nothing wrong with the
meat since it was actually offered to an idol and not to the one and true God,
that he would not eat it in the presence of a "weak" brother or one that
has a problem with it (lack of spiritual maturity) because it would be an offense
to the weaker brother in Christ.

Not actually teaching to "mind thine own business" but rather to be concerned
about the "weaker" brethen in the body of Christ.

It teaches both actually.

Expound on how it teaches "mind thine own business" please.

Each side of the equation(the 2 viewpoints) has a position: 1 has the position of "don't eat meat sacrificed to idols", the other, "there is nothing wrong with that meat". Certainly, the one with no problem with it shouldn't cause the other to "sin", but OTOH, the one with a problem with it shouldn't loook down on the other. In short, "Mind your own business", "Be true to yourself", "Follow your Conscience", take your pick.

Paul was talking about the responsibility of the stronger spiritually person to not offend
(cause to stumble) a weaker spiritual brother in the body of Christ (the Church) (and I'm
not talking about the Catholic church only). Being more spiritually mature brings upon
a greater responsibility. But in no way does it even suggest that we are to look the
other way "and mine our own business" if we know a brother is sinning.

We have come full circle back to my original point, Interpretation. You say toe mah toe, I say toe mate oh.

So who was right, the Sacrificed Meat eaters or the Shunners? Both were right, for the eating of said Meat had a certain affect on their Conscience. Due to that affect, it was pointless for one group to try and Correct the other, let them act according to their Conscience. Hence, "Mind thine own business" respecting the Others position, of course.

We are urged over and over again in the scriptures to care for those in the body
of Christ and also those who are not. Christ himself never turned anyone away
who was seeking for him but he didn't "make" anyone believe or follow him. It's
a person's freewill choice but as with any choice there are always consequences
of what we do or don't do.

Interpretation of the scriptures usually isn't that difficult if people are acquainted with the
scripture in whole and understand the pricnciples being taught. Most people who don't
want to agree with the truth taught in the scriptures are the ones who say that it's open
to different interpretations depending on who the person who is trying to understand it is.
This is not true, the truth is the truth and who we are or what we "think" or "feel" doesn't
change the truth.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your comment

Well see this is the problem. You say things are easy if one is acquianted, so do I, so do Catholics, Baptists, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc. Everyone is in agreement on that fact, they just all think the others are plain wrong and simply don't get it. Interpretations, Traditions, Group Think. If your view on the matter helps you respect others, then that's all that matters, just realize that everyone thinks the same of themselves and others.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It teaches that abortion is wrong, that it is murder. Murder is a mortal sin, capable of sending a soul to hell. Advocating murder through political support is close enough to murder for it to be a mortal sin (leading others into sin maybe?). Therefore, no communion.

EDIT: Gen 38:8-10. Onan was killed for not impregnating his brother's wife.

Yes, but what if the only two political parties are one which espouses abortion (bad, sinful, etc) and social programs (good, godly, etc) and the environment (stewards of the earth and all), whereas the other political party espouses no abortion (good) and taking money away from the poor to give to the rich (very bad) and war (bad without just cause)?

Basically both of the parties would be evil...does that mean the Catholic Church won't give communion to anyone who votes?

Obviously my examples were a bit extreme and any of those points can be argued.

As for the Onan verse, it is generally acknowledged that his sin was not impregnating the wife as commanded, rather than masturbation per se.

1) I agree, neither Party(or any Political Party for that matter) represent a Morally bulletproof position. A voter needs to decide based on more than 1 issue or on what issue is most urgent(which of course for some might involve Abortion).

2) I disagree with both of you. The story of Onan has no bearing on Abortion nor does it have anything to do with Masturbation.

Onan, as N0cmonkey pointed out, was legally obligated to impregnate his late brothers wife. His "sin" was avoidance of accomplishing the obligation(pulling out) and taking advantage of the situation(free kitty). His attitude dishonoured his Brother and his Sister-in-Law.

For something considered so vile by some, is there even 1 direct mention of Masturbation in Scripture?

I think it has to do with "spilling his seed upon the ground." As in, it should be put to good use instead of wasted. Not sure though. Did have a religion teacher tell the class that oral was ok, as long as the sperm goes where "god intended it."

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It teaches that abortion is wrong, that it is murder. Murder is a mortal sin, capable of sending a soul to hell. Advocating murder through political support is close enough to murder for it to be a mortal sin (leading others into sin maybe?). Therefore, no communion.

EDIT: Gen 38:8-10. Onan was killed for not impregnating his brother's wife.

Yes, but what if the only two political parties are one which espouses abortion (bad, sinful, etc) and social programs (good, godly, etc) and the environment (stewards of the earth and all), whereas the other political party espouses no abortion (good) and taking money away from the poor to give to the rich (very bad) and war (bad without just cause)?

Basically both of the parties would be evil...does that mean the Catholic Church won't give communion to anyone who votes?

Obviously my examples were a bit extreme and any of those points can be argued.

As for the Onan verse, it is generally acknowledged that his sin was not impregnating the wife as commanded, rather than masturbation per se.

1) I agree, neither Party(or any Political Party for that matter) represent a Morally bulletproof position. A voter needs to decide based on more than 1 issue or on what issue is most urgent(which of course for some might involve Abortion).

2) I disagree with both of you. The story of Onan has no bearing on Abortion nor does it have anything to do with Masturbation.

Onan, as N0cmonkey pointed out, was legally obligated to impregnate his late brothers wife. His "sin" was avoidance of accomplishing the obligation(pulling out) and taking advantage of the situation(free kitty). His attitude dishonoured his Brother and his Sister-in-Law.

For something considered so vile by some, is there even 1 direct mention of Masturbation in Scripture?

I think it has to do with "spilling his seed upon the ground." As in, it should be put to good use instead of wasted. Not sure though. Did have a religion teacher tell the class that oral was ok, as long as the sperm goes where "god intended it."

If the Seed was spilled on the ground, it could not Impregnate his Sister-in-Law. It wasn't that the Seed was wasted, it's that he tried to prolong the situation for his own Selfish reasons.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It teaches that abortion is wrong, that it is murder. Murder is a mortal sin, capable of sending a soul to hell. Advocating murder through political support is close enough to murder for it to be a mortal sin (leading others into sin maybe?). Therefore, no communion.

EDIT: Gen 38:8-10. Onan was killed for not impregnating his brother's wife.

Yes, but what if the only two political parties are one which espouses abortion (bad, sinful, etc) and social programs (good, godly, etc) and the environment (stewards of the earth and all), whereas the other political party espouses no abortion (good) and taking money away from the poor to give to the rich (very bad) and war (bad without just cause)?

Basically both of the parties would be evil...does that mean the Catholic Church won't give communion to anyone who votes?

Obviously my examples were a bit extreme and any of those points can be argued.

As for the Onan verse, it is generally acknowledged that his sin was not impregnating the wife as commanded, rather than masturbation per se.

1) I agree, neither Party(or any Political Party for that matter) represent a Morally bulletproof position. A voter needs to decide based on more than 1 issue or on what issue is most urgent(which of course for some might involve Abortion).

2) I disagree with both of you. The story of Onan has no bearing on Abortion nor does it have anything to do with Masturbation.

Onan, as N0cmonkey pointed out, was legally obligated to impregnate his late brothers wife. His "sin" was avoidance of accomplishing the obligation(pulling out) and taking advantage of the situation(free kitty). His attitude dishonoured his Brother and his Sister-in-Law.

For something considered so vile by some, is there even 1 direct mention of Masturbation in Scripture?

I think it has to do with "spilling his seed upon the ground." As in, it should be put to good use instead of wasted. Not sure though. Did have a religion teacher tell the class that oral was ok, as long as the sperm goes where "god intended it."

If the Seed was spilled on the ground, it could not Impregnate his Sister-in-Law. It wasn't that the Seed was wasted, it's that he tried to prolong the situation for his own Selfish reasons.

I did my time on the inside. I feel no need to argue the point.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: sandorski
2) I disagree with both of you. The story of Onan has no bearing on Abortion nor does it have anything to do with Masturbation.

Onan, as N0cmonkey pointed out, was legally obligated to impregnate his late brothers wife. His "sin" was avoidance of accomplishing the obligation(pulling out) and taking advantage of the situation(free kitty). His attitude dishonoured his Brother and his Sister-in-Law.

that's what I said.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: sandorski
2) I disagree with both of you. The story of Onan has no bearing on Abortion nor does it have anything to do with Masturbation.

Onan, as N0cmonkey pointed out, was legally obligated to impregnate his late brothers wife. His "sin" was avoidance of accomplishing the obligation(pulling out) and taking advantage of the situation(free kitty). His attitude dishonoured his Brother and his Sister-in-Law.

that's what I said.

On second read, yes you said it. I misread it. Kinda confused by why it was brought up though.