Jump to content
That is a beautiful and humbling concept when you fully come to realize it. We all deserve hell, especially me, but God the creator of the entire universe died and took those sins such as a simple lie, which instantly condemns me too hell, and took it upon himself so I could be brought into His kingdom. All I can say to that is, Thank You, God.
So denying Christ's righteous judgement is taking away part of the Bible, and hence, you are bringing the judgement of God upon yourself. Now, even though the Bible, (and Jesus if you will), clearly show that homosexuality is a sin, does that mean we are to stone them, and shun them from society? Of course not. Our relationship with God has been transformed and the Old Covenant he had with Israel has been changed because of Christ, who mentions the New Covenant in Luke 22:20, "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. This new covenant or testament was foretold in Jeremiah 31:31 and 33, 32 isn't as specific about it, just saying it'll be different from the covenant he made with Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Anyway, 31 and 33 say, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their god, and they shall be my people." And specifically because of this New Covenant God has allowed His mercy to be shown, instead of having to sacrifice burnt offerings to Him, we, through Christ alone, have the ability to God before God and ask for our sins, (lies, homosexuality, adultery, having sex before or outside of marriage, hatred, pride, envy, lust, etc) to be forgiven and He will forgive them, because the blood that was needed for the atonement was paid in full on the cross by Christ, our mediator between God and man. Who came that none would perish, but that all would be saved if they repent of their sins, and accept the free gift He graciously gave to undeserving sinners whom He loved enough to suffer and take upon Himself all our sins.
Ultimately that's what everything comes down to. Is it a sin to be gay? yes, is it a sin to lie? yes, is it a sin to hate, be prideful, to lust, to envy, to do a multitude of other things? a big fat YES. But that's why Christ came so we can have freedom from those sins and live a life or basically a slave as Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 7:22, which is the only kind of slave I want to be sold out completely to and for, because there is no greater joy than being filled with Christ and His love, and knowing that he saved us from his perfect righteousness and wrath. Because sin always comes at a cost, and that's why Christ is righteous, and is called the righteous judge in 2 Timothy 4:8. If Christ hated gays, then he wouldn't have died for all, like so many verses mention, but he would have died for a few. He hates the sin, and being gay isn't the only one as I've mentioned, but he loves the sinner, and that's who he died for, the sinner to be freedom from their sin, and to no longer be enslaved the the Devil.
I guess if you want a verse where Jesus specifically talks about homosexuality, you won't find it, because it wasn't common in those days, and it wasn't something people had to deal with on a daily basis because pretty much everyone knew it was wrong. However, if you want a verse where He mentions how creation was intended to be, I'd look at Matthew 19, specifically verses 3-6, but go a head and read the whole chapter if you like. I know a lot of people are worried about picking and choosing. Anyway, here's what he says in response to the Pharisees asking is it lawful for a manto put away his wife for almost any reason, and Jesus says in verse 4-6, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
I don't see him making a reference to a man leaving his father and mother for another man, or a woman for another woman. Clearly He says a man shall cleave to a woman. I mean talk to God about your disagreements with His wording, cause it's not mine.
Also, another thing to point out is that most people, like you asked, "Where does Jesus talk about gays," well, if you take the Bible as the literal inspired Word of God, then everything written down is God/Jesus's words which they want us to know, so we can live a life of righteousness. So what Paul was led to right in Roman's Chapter one, or Corinthians, or Moses in Leviticus was all hand crafted by God. Now, if you disagree with that, then you've got a problem because Christ Himself said He was God, and even mentions that people in the latter days will be deceived, and will fall away from the faith. Clearly a lot of people are deceived in our current day and age, as was foretold by Christ, so we shouldn't be surprised. Especially the whole lacking of the entirety of who Christ was. Because when you take away the Righteousness, and Judgement characteristics of Christ, then you've done what was clearly commanded not to do in Revelation 22:18-19, specifically verse 19 says, "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Totally agree, jrgreen600
There is no "new awakening" going on. People are voting at the same percentage they always have, and voter ID is not only cause Democrats to get ID's, but also Republicans and Independents. It's not restricting one groups voting ability, more than any other. We'll all have to get ID's whether we're black, White, Hispanic, or Asian.
That's not entirely true. The reason Obama won is not because he received another mandate, or the majority of the population outright "rejected" Republican views on the economy.
It's much more simple than that. Obama got his base out to vote, better than Romney did.
It's that simple. He got more Liberals and Democratic leaning voters out to vote, than Romney did getting Conservatives and Republican leaning voters out to vote.
Seriously? Trees? They need to cut a few in Pinehurst while they're at it.
Toda, You're also forgetting, that they opted not to vote for for Marcus either.
Also, I know you never mentioned President Obama, but the ramifications of the Commissioners race are the exact same. That's why I chose to mention it. I know what I was doing, and I know quite a bit about politics, tyvm, and that's probably why I study it daily.
Whatever you say about the commissioners race will apply to any other race in the country. It's not just about Picerno, millions of Americans didn't vote for President Obama or Mitt Romney, thousands didn't vote for Brown or Warren, Heller or Berkely, Mandel or Brown, Mack or Nelson, McCrory or Dalton. So the implications are the same nationwide as for locally, and are you willing to apply those same characteristics that you do with Picerno and Marcus, to those national races?
You're going to have a faction of the population who just won't vote for one party or another, generally on small, stupid issues that only they tend to care about. People who vote for the Green party tend to be more liberal on average, but don't see the Democratic party as being liberal enough, and same goes for the constitutional party, they tend to be tea party types, but they don't think the Republican party is Conservative enough, and the Libertarian party thinks both parties are too much involved in government.
I mean come on, those people are only like .1% of the population anyway. It won't change in the future.
Lastly, I'm at an actual University, so I think I'm good on the whole GED program.
Toda, your first post was laughable. I'm sorry, but because 100% of voters didn't vote, that proves Picerno would have lost, is what you're basically saying? I mean, let's look at 2008. President Obama won convincingly, by 7%. Most people would agree with me, in saying that he was elected overwhelmingly, even though we didn't have 100% voter turnout.
The thing that you don't seem to get, is that those 17k voters who didn't turn out, evenly reflect what happened with the 46k who did turn out. I.e. Picerno would have received the same %, with those extra 17k voting, that he did, without them. It's not like there were 17k extra Democrats out there who didn't vote or something. They were Republicans, Democrats and independents.
So yes, he was overwhelmingly reelected, because he got 63% of the vote. That is a big win, you can't spin it any other way. FYI, Obama's landslide win in 2008 was only with 53%.
Well, sadly, your candidate will get blow out on election day.
Anniversary Announcement | Birthdays Over 80 | Birthdays Under 12 | Engagement Announcement | Site Feedback | Letter to the Editor | User Submitted Photo | Subscription Request | Vacation Start Stops | Wedding Announcement Subscribe | Advertising | Media Kit | About Us | Contact Us | Archives | Search
Physical Address: 145 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Southern Pines, NC Mailing Address: P.O. Box 58, Southern Pines, NC 28388 910-692-7271 Fax: 910-692-9382