You confuse "cherry picking" with "out of context" picking....
JH -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Helio W. Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 2:44 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] Male priests marry in Anglican church's first gay wedding Cherry pick the bible? Hmm.... http://russellsteapot.com/know-your-bible/all/ On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 4:14 PM, John Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gay priest? Isn't that an oxymoron? God says homosexuality is an abomination > and they think it's ok to cherry pick the Bible. Hmm, I like that 'don't > murder' one, but what the big deal with stealing.... > > JH > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Bob Calco > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 1:56 PM > To: 'ProFox Email List' > Subject: RE: [OT] Male priests marry in Anglican church's first gay wedding > >> > >> > Sad. If these men understood the bond that was actually being forged >> > between >> > them spiritually, they'd be weeping, not celebrating. >> > >> > Proverbs 14:12. Jeremiah 17:9. Romans 1:24-32. >> > >> > But then, Luke 23:34. >> > -------------------------------------------- >> >> >> Tell us how you really feel. ;-> >> >> To me the Romans was the only passage the fit the ,,,, crime in your >> sense. >> The way I read this passage was the failure to Love God because you >> were >> focused on the Love in your life, and the challenges that would have >> required back then. > > It's deeper than that--it's about loving the creation more than the creator, > and becoming so far gone in self-love and man-worship that God basically > hands you over to your delusion. You're pretty far gone if you're gone that > far, and it's a hard way back (not for God but for you)--and this is why I > said they would weep rather than celebrate, if they knew what they were > really worshipping and to whom they were really giving glory with this > "marriage." They clearly have no spiritual discernment at all, at least not > any Christian spiritual discernment. > > By the way that fact has nothing to do with their sexual preference as > such--all sin is death, including all manner of sexual sin, of which theirs > is but one rather plain garden-variety kind--but rather it is about their > spiritual pretense. > > This was not a wedding in any Christ-glorifying sense, but rather a demonic > mockery of the very idea behind God's provision for marriage, as a spiritual > reflection of Christ's relationship to the Church. I defy anyone to find > anything in Scripture---which, remember, these *priests* claim to believe in > and teach others about---that sanctions what they are doing on any level > whatsoever. > > I mean---why bother hanging on to all this Christian garbage if you really > don't buy any of it? The purpose is to mock it. That is the only possible > answer. > >> >> I was surprised that you did not quote the LAW in Lev.? > > The law in Leviticus, technically speaking, is fulfilled/superseded by the > new law of love in Christ. That is, adherence to the law and all the > regulations put forth in Leviticus and Deuteronomy per se is not going to > save you, because good works according to the law is no longer the ticket to > heaven, but rather faith, specifically in Christ. Romans 7 and 8, not to > mention Hebrews 11, explain this point better and more eloquently than I > can. Stoning of homosexuals and adulterers etc. per the law was only > required while redemption was of the flesh through the law--and really only > applied to the theocracy that was Israel at the time of Moses. The mechanics > of salvation changed when Jesus came down from Heaven as a man and showed us > the way through the Spirit, which was what the cross was all about. > > The other passages were more appropriate IMHO because they get to the heart > of the matter--which is self-deception, just "following one's heart" and > loving man's so-called wisdom. When you're on that path all manner of sin > seems quite entertaining, the kind of fun you feel, well, entitled to have. > > Anyway, none of this stuff is new, which is another point to be gleaned from > Romans 1. It's just sad because, in the case of so-called *clergy* > participating in this deception, it causes great misunderstanding about the > nature and kingdom of God, and leads others inexorably into sin and death. > Such are the fruits of false teachers, which prey like wolves in sheep's > clothing (or in this case, frocks) on the spiritually weak, and always have. > That's all. > > Other than that, I've got no objection.... But for that I really would not > have even bothered to notice the story. They are a dime a dozen these days. > > - Bob > >> >> >> >> -- >> Stephen Russell >> Sr. Production Systems Programmer >> Mimeo.com >> Memphis TN >> >> 901.246-0159 >> > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]@shelbynet.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
