High profile HAC students

[rsc2a]

Your word was specifically.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Your word was specifically.

Touche'!

 

[kaba]

I find that more and more people that were either hurt by IFB/HAC or who were total Man of God worshippers but have since "seen the light" have tried their best to believe everything opposite of HAC/IFB. It saddens me to see this type of thinking!

And the opposite of following man means following God through the teachings of Jesus. Why does that sadden you?

Wish I was more eloquent in writing! Just seems like people try to avoid calling sin, sin and just want to explain why we have to accept it, because God is love and would not want to judge others. they are so bent on proving all things IFB/HAC are wrong.  The ones I am disappointed in are not interested in following the teachings of Jesus-just the following of what makes them feel good about the current decisions they are making

Thanks for the clarification.

From my perspective, a lot of our "Christian beliefs" are based on tradition and not the teachings of Christ. This is why I clearly am opposed to biblical marriage. The "biblical marriage" was one of polygamy and perhaps a harem of concubines with whom the "Husband" had the right to sleep with. In addition, the husband had the right to stone his new bride if a bloody garment couldn't be provided after the honeymoon night. I hate to say it, but I can't demean my wife with any of that stuff. And Jesus set the record straight.

So we through terms like "biblical marriage" and "sodomy" and the like and not research what the terms mean. Basically, Christianity has become living a life of cliches. My following Christ will look different than my wife's following which is different than each of our kids' lives. Following the teachings of Christ looks differently to each individual so this is why I can't come out and adamantly tell everyone that homosexuality as a sin. Following Christ is a relative thing and I cannot condemn someone who is not harming others that their perspective is totally wrong. Now when one harms people, uses them for their own power trips, etc, things become much more clear.

While I respect what you believe, I have to say on somethings the Bible is clear about what is wrong and what is right, not depends on who is doing what.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I find that more and more people that were either hurt by IFB/HAC or who were total Man of God worshippers but have since "seen the light" have tried their best to believe everything opposite of HAC/IFB. It saddens me to see this type of thinking!

And the opposite of following man means following God through the teachings of Jesus. Why does that sadden you?

Wish I was more eloquent in writing! Just seems like people try to avoid calling sin, sin and just want to explain why we have to accept it, because God is love and would not want to judge others. they are so bent on proving all things IFB/HAC are wrong.  The ones I am disappointed in are not interested in following the teachings of Jesus-just the following of what makes them feel good about the current decisions they are making

Thanks for the clarification.

From my perspective, a lot of our "Christian beliefs" are based on tradition and not the teachings of Christ. This is why I clearly am opposed to biblical marriage. The "biblical marriage" was one of polygamy and perhaps a harem of concubines with whom the "Husband" had the right to sleep with. In addition, the husband had the right to stone his new bride if a bloody garment couldn't be provided after the honeymoon night. I hate to say it, but I can't demean my wife with any of that stuff. And Jesus set the record straight.

So we through terms like "biblical marriage" and "sodomy" and the like and not research what the terms mean. Basically, Christianity has become living a life of cliches. My following Christ will look different than my wife's following which is different than each of our kids' lives. Following the teachings of Christ looks differently to each individual so this is why I can't come out and adamantly tell everyone that homosexuality as a sin. Following Christ is a relative thing and I cannot condemn someone who is not harming others that their perspective is totally wrong. Now when one harms people, uses them for their own power trips, etc, things become much more clear.

While I respect what you believe, I have to say on somethings the Bible is clear about what is wrong and what is right, not depends on who is doing what.

And yet we have several different religious stripes that all claim truth from the Bible. Things that might seem clear to one might not be as clear to another. A text might read differently through the lens of one religious bent than would be perceived by one of another bent. JWs, Mormons, SDAs, Evangelicals, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Calvinists, Arminians, etc. All use the same book. All claim to have the "absolute truth" lens in which they look at the Bible. Yet different conclusions.

 

[rsc2a]

Actually Mormons and SDAs have added other books .

 

[kaba]

I find that more and more people that were either hurt by IFB/HAC or who were total Man of God worshippers but have since "seen the light" have tried their best to believe everything opposite of HAC/IFB. It saddens me to see this type of thinking!

And the opposite of following man means following God through the teachings of Jesus. Why does that sadden you?

Wish I was more eloquent in writing! Just seems like people try to avoid calling sin, sin and just want to explain why we have to accept it, because God is love and would not want to judge others. they are so bent on proving all things IFB/HAC are wrong.  The ones I am disappointed in are not interested in following the teachings of Jesus-just the following of what makes them feel good about the current decisions they are making

Thanks for the clarification.

From my perspective, a lot of our "Christian beliefs" are based on tradition and not the teachings of Christ. This is why I clearly am opposed to biblical marriage. The "biblical marriage" was one of polygamy and perhaps a harem of concubines with whom the "Husband" had the right to sleep with. In addition, the husband had the right to stone his new bride if a bloody garment couldn't be provided after the honeymoon night. I hate to say it, but I can't demean my wife with any of that stuff. And Jesus set the record straight.

So we through terms like "biblical marriage" and "sodomy" and the like and not research what the terms mean. Basically, Christianity has become living a life of cliches. My following Christ will look different than my wife's following which is different than each of our kids' lives. Following the teachings of Christ looks differently to each individual so this is why I can't come out and adamantly tell everyone that homosexuality as a sin. Following Christ is a relative thing and I cannot condemn someone who is not harming others that their perspective is totally wrong. Now when one harms people, uses them for their own power trips, etc, things become much more clear.

While I respect what you believe, I have to say on somethings the Bible is clear about what is wrong and what is right, not depends on who is doing what.

And yet we have several different religious stripes that all claim truth from the Bible. Things that might seem clear to one might not be as clear to another. A text might read differently through the lens of one religious bent than would be perceived by one of another bent. JWs, Mormons, SDAs, Evangelicals, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Calvinists, Arminians, etc. All use the same book. All claim to have the "absolute truth" lens in which they look at the Bible. Yet different conclusions.

I think the problem comes when man starts adding their own words to the Bible.

 

[cast.sheep]

And yet we have several different religious stripes that all claim truth from the Bible. Things that might seem clear to one might not be as clear to another. A text might read differently through the lens of one religious bent than would be perceived by one of another bent. JWs, Mormons, SDAs, Evangelicals, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Calvinists, Arminians, etc. All use the same book. All claim to have the "absolute truth" lens in which they look at the Bible. Yet different conclusions.

Which is why I now sit in church and weigh everything I hear.  Everything.  I no longer trust anyone's "take" on anything.  I've seen and heard too much over the years.  I read the Bible and let God teach me what I need to know.  He knows me best and He knows what I need.  I have a wonderful pastor and I enjoy his sermons, but his take on what the Bible says is not the basis for what I believe.  Been there...done that...never again.  Those teaching heresy are using the Bible to back up that heresy.  I have figured out that I am not smart enough to know when I'm hearing heresy....after all, I graduated from HAC...

 

[kaba]

And yet we have several different religious stripes that all claim truth from the Bible. Things that might seem clear to one might not be as clear to another. A text might read differently through the lens of one religious bent than would be perceived by one of another bent. JWs, Mormons, SDAs, Evangelicals, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Calvinists, Arminians, etc. All use the same book. All claim to have the "absolute truth" lens in which they look at the Bible. Yet different conclusions.

Which is why I now sit in church and weigh everything I hear.  Everything.  I no longer trust anyone's "take" on anything.  I've seen and heard too much over the years.  I read the Bible and let God teach me what I need to know.  He knows me best and He knows what I need.  I have a wonderful pastor and I enjoy his sermons, but his take on what the Bible says is not the basis for what I believe.  Been there...done that...never again.  Those teaching heresy are using the Bible to back up that heresy.  I have figured out that I am not smart enough to know when I'm hearing heresy....after all, I graduated from HAC...

me too

 

[SwampHag]

One of my first wake up calls to the heresy was when Bro. Hyles would read ONE verse then tell us to close our Bibles and listen to him

What???

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Actually Mormons and SDAs have added other books .

True but they still use the Bible as a part of their literature and interpret things differently than others.

 

[cast.sheep]

One of my first wake up calls to the heresy was when Bro. Hyles would read ONE verse then tell us to close our Bibles and listen to him

What???

In my college years, that was the thing I actually LIKED about listening to Bro. Hyles!  hahahaha!  I was so immature.  Now I understand how dangerous that is. 

 

[Mathew Ward]

I find that more and more people that were either hurt by IFB/HAC or who were total Man of God worshippers but have since "seen the light" have tried their best to believe everything opposite of HAC/IFB. It saddens me to see this type of thinking!

And the opposite of following man means following God through the teachings of Jesus. Why does that sadden you?

Wish I was more eloquent in writing! Just seems like people try to avoid calling sin, sin and just want to explain why we have to accept it, because God is love and would not want to judge others. they are so bent on proving all things IFB/HAC are wrong.  The ones I am disappointed in are not interested in following the teachings of Jesus-just the following of what makes them feel good about the current decisions they are making

Thanks for the clarification.

From my perspective, a lot of our "Christian beliefs" are based on tradition and not the teachings of Christ. This is why I clearly am opposed to biblical marriage. The "biblical marriage" was one of polygamy and perhaps a harem of concubines with whom the "Husband" had the right to sleep with. In addition, the husband had the right to stone his new bride if a bloody garment couldn't be provided after the honeymoon night. I hate to say it, but I can't demean my wife with any of that stuff. And Jesus set the record straight.

So we through terms like "biblical marriage" and "sodomy" and the like and not research what the terms mean. Basically, Christianity has become living a life of cliches. My following Christ will look different than my wife's following which is different than each of our kids' lives. Following the teachings of Christ looks differently to each individual so this is why I can't come out and adamantly tell everyone that homosexuality as a sin. Following Christ is a relative thing and I cannot condemn someone who is not harming others that their perspective is totally wrong. Now when one harms people, uses them for their own power trips, etc, things become much more clear.

While I respect what you believe, I have to say on somethings the Bible is clear about what is wrong and what is right, not depends on who is doing what.

And yet we have several different religious stripes that all claim truth from the Bible. Things that might seem clear to one might not be as clear to another. A text might read differently through the lens of one religious bent than would be perceived by one of another bent. JWs, Mormons, SDAs, Evangelicals, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Calvinists, Arminians, etc. All use the same book. All claim to have the "absolute truth" lens in which they look at the Bible. Yet different conclusions.

I think the problem comes when man starts adding their own words to the Bible.

Would that include the italicized words in the KJV

 

[subllibrm]

I think the problem comes when man starts adding their own words to the Bible.

Would that include the italicized words in the KJV

Bam!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

I don't reject everything in them, but I do believe Paul was deceived on the Damascus Road, believed a false Christ his "special revelations" he got from Jesus were the antithesis of Jesus' instructions given at the Great Commission.

Paul is right on some things and wrong on some. Rather than filter the teachings of Jesus through the teachings of Paul (like traditional Christianity does), I try to filter the teachings of Paul through the recorded teachings of Jesus. By doing so, I have come to a whole different outlook on Christianity.

Anyway, that is another argument for another day.

Some people believe much but know little....

Why does it bother you that someone has studied the same texts you have and come to a completely different conclusion?

You believe that Sodomy is a sin, based on scripture.
So do I.
So did Lot.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

I don't reject everything in them, but I do believe Paul was deceived on the Damascus Road, believed a false Christ his "special revelations" he got from Jesus were the antithesis of Jesus' instructions given at the Great Commission.

Paul is right on some things and wrong on some. Rather than filter the teachings of Jesus through the teachings of Paul (like traditional Christianity does), I try to filter the teachings of Paul through the recorded teachings of Jesus. By doing so, I have come to a whole different outlook on Christianity.

Anyway, that is another argument for another day.

Some people believe much but know little....

Why does it bother you that someone has studied the same texts you have and come to a completely different conclusion?

You believe that Sodomy is a sin, based on scripture.
So do I.
So did Lot.

That doesn't answer the question I asked. What about Christians (gay or straight) who have come to a different conclusion?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

I don't reject everything in them, but I do believe Paul was deceived on the Damascus Road, believed a false Christ his "special revelations" he got from Jesus were the antithesis of Jesus' instructions given at the Great Commission.

Paul is right on some things and wrong on some. Rather than filter the teachings of Jesus through the teachings of Paul (like traditional Christianity does), I try to filter the teachings of Paul through the recorded teachings of Jesus. By doing so, I have come to a whole different outlook on Christianity.

Anyway, that is another argument for another day.

Some people believe much but know little....

Why does it bother you that someone has studied the same texts you have and come to a completely different conclusion?

You believe that Sodomy is a sin, based on scripture.
So do I.
So did Lot.

That doesn't answer the question I asked. What about Christians (gay or straight) who have come to a different conclusion?

I think those who believe Sodomy is not a sin are Scripture deniers.
If you mean Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc?
I think they're cults!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

I don't reject everything in them, but I do believe Paul was deceived on the Damascus Road, believed a false Christ his "special revelations" he got from Jesus were the antithesis of Jesus' instructions given at the Great Commission.

Paul is right on some things and wrong on some. Rather than filter the teachings of Jesus through the teachings of Paul (like traditional Christianity does), I try to filter the teachings of Paul through the recorded teachings of Jesus. By doing so, I have come to a whole different outlook on Christianity.

Anyway, that is another argument for another day.

Some people believe much but know little....

Why does it bother you that someone has studied the same texts you have and come to a completely different conclusion?

You believe that Sodomy is a sin, based on scripture.
So do I.
So did Lot.

That doesn't answer the question I asked. What about Christians (gay or straight) who have come to a different conclusion?

I think those who believe Sodomy is not a sin are Scripture deniers.
If you mean Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc?
I think they're cults!

I do not believe the Bible directly calls the act of homosexuality in and of itself a sin. I personally believe it to be a form of immorality based on my opinion so I would then have to consider it a sin. There are those who do not personally hold it as a form of immorality (for whatever their reasons) and they also do not believe the Bible is clear on the topic so they are OK with it.

What makes them "Scripture deniers" if they have studied it out for themselves and have come to a different conclusion?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

I don't reject everything in them, but I do believe Paul was deceived on the Damascus Road, believed a false Christ his "special revelations" he got from Jesus were the antithesis of Jesus' instructions given at the Great Commission.

Paul is right on some things and wrong on some. Rather than filter the teachings of Jesus through the teachings of Paul (like traditional Christianity does), I try to filter the teachings of Paul through the recorded teachings of Jesus. By doing so, I have come to a whole different outlook on Christianity.

Anyway, that is another argument for another day.

Some people believe much but know little....

Why does it bother you that someone has studied the same texts you have and come to a completely different conclusion?

You believe that Sodomy is a sin, based on scripture.
So do I.
So did Lot.

That doesn't answer the question I asked. What about Christians (gay or straight) who have come to a different conclusion?

I think those who believe Sodomy is not a sin are Scripture deniers.
If you mean Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc?
I think they're cults!

I do not believe the Bible directly calls the act of homosexuality in and of itself a sin. I personally believe it to be a form of immorality based on my opinion so I would then have to consider it a sin. There are those who do not personally hold it as a form of immorality (for whatever their reasons) and they also do not believe the Bible is clear on the topic so they are OK with it.

What makes them "Scripture deniers" if they have studied it out for themselves and have come to a different conclusion?

See Dan, your personal belief system means two things to me...Jack and squat! 
Again I repeat, the scriptures, both old and new testament, make it perfectly clear that sodomy is a sin....just like lying, pride, heterosexual fornication and gluttony are called sin.

Only a biased, biblically ignorant, agenda driven, intellectually dishonest person could claim otherwise!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

I don't reject everything in them, but I do believe Paul was deceived on the Damascus Road, believed a false Christ his "special revelations" he got from Jesus were the antithesis of Jesus' instructions given at the Great Commission.

Paul is right on some things and wrong on some. Rather than filter the teachings of Jesus through the teachings of Paul (like traditional Christianity does), I try to filter the teachings of Paul through the recorded teachings of Jesus. By doing so, I have come to a whole different outlook on Christianity.

Anyway, that is another argument for another day.

Some people believe much but know little....

Why does it bother you that someone has studied the same texts you have and come to a completely different conclusion?

You believe that Sodomy is a sin, based on scripture.
So do I.
So did Lot.

That doesn't answer the question I asked. What about Christians (gay or straight) who have come to a different conclusion?

I think those who believe Sodomy is not a sin are Scripture deniers.
If you mean Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc?
I think they're cults!

I do not believe the Bible directly calls the act of homosexuality in and of itself a sin. I personally believe it to be a form of immorality based on my opinion so I would then have to consider it a sin. There are those who do not personally hold it as a form of immorality (for whatever their reasons) and they also do not believe the Bible is clear on the topic so they are OK with it.

What makes them "Scripture deniers" if they have studied it out for themselves and have come to a different conclusion?

See Dan, your personal belief system means two things to me...Jack and squat! 
Again I repeat, the scriptures, both old and new testament, make it perfectly clear that sodomy is a sin....just like lying, pride, heterosexual fornication and gluttony are called sin.

Only a biased, biblically ignorant, agenda driven, intellectually dishonest person could claim otherwise!

I'm not talking about my personal belief system. If you agreed with them, I would be mightily !

To you, such Scriptures might be clear but to others, they might not - with no agenda and in all sincerity on their part. It is just the way they view it based on how their hermeneutical processes. And there are those, both straight and gay, that take the exact same Scriptures you would use to defend your position, and according to their hermeneutics, disagree with your position. Perhaps certain positions aren't as clear as one might surmise.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

I don't reject everything in them, but I do believe Paul was deceived on the Damascus Road, believed a false Christ his "special revelations" he got from Jesus were the antithesis of Jesus' instructions given at the Great Commission.

Paul is right on some things and wrong on some. Rather than filter the teachings of Jesus through the teachings of Paul (like traditional Christianity does), I try to filter the teachings of Paul through the recorded teachings of Jesus. By doing so, I have come to a whole different outlook on Christianity.

Anyway, that is another argument for another day.

Some people believe much but know little....

Why does it bother you that someone has studied the same texts you have and come to a completely different conclusion?

You believe that Sodomy is a sin, based on scripture.
So do I.
So did Lot.

That doesn't answer the question I asked. What about Christians (gay or straight) who have come to a different conclusion?

I think those who believe Sodomy is not a sin are Scripture deniers.
If you mean Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc?
I think they're cults!

I do not believe the Bible directly calls the act of homosexuality in and of itself a sin. I personally believe it to be a form of immorality based on my opinion so I would then have to consider it a sin. There are those who do not personally hold it as a form of immorality (for whatever their reasons) and they also do not believe the Bible is clear on the topic so they are OK with it.

What makes them "Scripture deniers" if they have studied it out for themselves and have come to a different conclusion?

See Dan, your personal belief system means two things to me...Jack and squat! 
Again I repeat, the scriptures, both old and new testament, make it perfectly clear that sodomy is a sin....just like lying, pride, heterosexual fornication and gluttony are called sin.

Only a biased, biblically ignorant, agenda driven, intellectually dishonest person could claim otherwise!

I'm not talking about my personal belief system. If you agreed with them, I would be mightily !

To you, such Scriptures might be clear but to others, they might not - with no agenda and in all sincerity on their part. It is just the way they view it based on how their hermeneutical processes. And there are those, both straight and gay, that take the exact same Scriptures you would use to defend your position, and according to their hermeneutics, disagree with your position. Perhaps certain positions aren't as clear as one might surmise.

Scripture is absolutely clear, concise and consistent.
At least to anyone not biased, agenda driven and covering their sin.
Jude 7, Romans 1 are pretty clear, among many other verses.
Now, what you believe, how you could twist or contort Jude 7 to mean the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality is laughable...and sad at the same time.

I agree with Tom, I have some sympathy for you, but I'm through with this ludicrous 'the Bible says black but really means white' routine of yours!

You are a good, well meaning guy, I'm sure, but...