"You Never Know What God Might Say"

RevKen: How little you understand us (or at least me). You write, "then you must agree that you are definitely prohibiting all who behave in this way from participating in the rewards that you deserve as a result of your righteous behavior." The only "reward" to which I am entitled is death for that is the wages of sin and I am a sinner. My only hope is in the saving death and resurrection of my Lord and Savior. My job is to follow Him -- to make disciples and teach them to obey the things He commanded. I want gays to share in that inheritance as much as I want my straight neighbors but you and TEO drive them away from God by encouraging them to deliberately disobey and to follow the world instead.

RevKen wrote:

<quoted text>
TA,
I hope this point that you are making is not lost on me.
I believe that you and George and many others who try your best to live according to the bounds offered by scripture are doing so out of concern for yourselves and out of concern for others. Likewise, I believe that you continue to make judgments about the behavior of others, calling certain behavior sin, also believing that these judgments are made out of true concern for others.

Rev. I do not “make judgments” about what is or isn’t sin. These judgments were made by God and provided to us through Scripture handed down through the prophets, disciples, and apostles. I can no more define what sin is than anyone else. Nor can I or anyone else redefine what God has called sin.

RevKen wrote:

<quoted text>
No. Your concern for others is expressed in an insistent and believed to be righteous intolerance of the behavior of some others, which intolerance is clearly supported by your understanding of the meaning of well-known passages of Holy Scripture. If there is any fault at all, it is in the passages of the Holy Scripture. But, because there can be no error or fault in any passages of Holy Scripture, your intolerance and concern for the deadly sins and behavior of some others is wholly justified.

Rev. The totality of Scripture requires the male/female prerequisite for marriage and relationships, so the “well-known” passages aren’t the only ones that instruct us on this matter.

RevKen wrote:

<quoted text>
Webster's defines a bigot as: one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices.
And, you say that you are not encouraging the promiscuous behavior. But, then since you are very clearly condemning the non-promiscuous behavior by insisting and teaching that such behavior is not acceptable under any circumstances, then you must agree that you are definitely prohibiting all who behave in this way from participating in the rewards that you deserve as a result of your righteous behavior.
Webster's: segregate: to cause or force the separation of..
discriminate: to distinguish by disceernment or exposing differences..
You are such a good judge, TA. Judge yourself.
KGC

I deserve no rewards and I am not righteous. I do judge myself and ask for God’s forgiveness daily for transgressions that I have committed. It is you and TEC that are leading these people down the wrong path by calling good what God said was/is sin.

Mark 9:42
"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.

If you are in fact a reverend, it would certainly give me pause to think that I am clearly teaching something different that what Scripture teaches. If you are a reverend you will be held to a higher level of accountability because of what you teach.

James 3:1
Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

Think Again wrote:

<quoted text>
I deserve no rewards and I am not righteous. I do judge myself and ask for God’s forgiveness daily for transgressions that I have committed. It is you and TEC that are leading these people down the wrong path by calling good what God said was/is sin.
Mark 9:42
"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.
If you are in fact a reverend, it would certainly give me pause to think that I am clearly teaching something different that what Scripture teaches. If you are a reverend you will be held to a higher level of accountability because of what you teach.
James 3:1
Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

TA,

I think my moniker here, RevKen, is a stumbling block. I'm changing it.

KGC

RevKen wrote:

<quoted text>
TA,
I think my moniker here, RevKen, is a stumbling block. I'm changing it.
KGC

Nah! I'm keepin' it. Ruffling your feathers, TA, is good for you. You've been letting your conscience lay unattended to for much too long.

KGC

RevKen wrote:

<quoted text>
Nah! I'm keepin' it. Ruffling your feathers, TA, is good for you. You've been letting your conscience lay unattended to for much too long.
KGC

You are free to call yourself whatever you would like. My conscience is fine.

Think Again wrote:

<quoted text>

Mark 9:42
"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.

If you are in fact a reverend, it would certainly give me pause to think that I am clearly teaching something different that what Scripture teaches. If you are a reverend you will be held to a higher level of accountability because of what you teach.
James 3:1

Two issues here.

#1. From which translation of the bible are you citing this verse? This appears to be an incorrect translation. The original text clearly has been interpreted by many translators as "place a stumbling block" instead of "causes ... to sin" as you have written above.

#2. "Whether or not [I am] a Reverend ..." TA, way too much credibility has been given to Reverends and so-called Reverends just because they themselves put that in front of their name. I would suggest and encourage you to genuflect to the prefix. If you take pause to consider what YOU are teaching, then that is quite good and enough because it is a matter of YOUR conscience and a reflection of your understanding being checked for veracity - by you.

Just because I am able to put Rev in front of my name doesn't mean squat. Heck, I know an Episcopal priest who puts whoop-de-doo "Rev. Dr." in front of his name and expects everybody to grovel in front of him because of it. The guy can definitely cite chapter and verse. But, his contempt and condescension for those who don't automatically grovel is palpable.

I won't go into why I picked the moniker "RevKen." But, it certainly wasn't for the purpose of requiring any due respect from you. I regard you as a brother and an equal in every respect.

KGC

Think Again wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are in fact a reverend

In the previous post, I meant to write, I encourage you NOT to genuflect to the prefix."

My mistake. Pardon me. I had gone back through the post to spellcheck before issuing it and while changing a sentence around had inadvertently forgotten to re-insert the NOT. Ironic. It was most obviously a Freudian slip.

KGC