Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: cloudmountain

“Handedly” is part of “high handedly” and it’s use is correct, referring to, in this case, the arrogant, arbitrary and unlawful assumption of the right to basically amend the Scriptures, altering what they say or mean.

And I was not accusing you of arrogating the Scripture: rather that is in reference to those who do so, as in the case of “christians” who set aside the demand for repentance because some sin has become socially acceptable. Naturally this mean those who actively do so.

Please don’t think I’m accusing you of stuff, certainly like we are talking about here.

Still, in the case of sexual sins, it is not homosexuality alone we are told to flee, but simply sexual sin. That includes heterosexual adultery and fornication and not just outright perverted acts. Of course Christ said that lust itself was the real issue not to be played with and He equatied it to actual adultery. So I’m hardly surprised that when confronting a worldling about porn they often act just as upset as if I had just encouraged them to be a prude from now on (now, in these licentious times, deemed a negative in every respect).

When someone thinks their illicit sexual escapades are what it means to pursue happiness they really don’t like God’s expectation that we be suitably chaste and pure people.


78 posted on 07/18/2016 6:48:39 PM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]


To: Rurudyne
To: (use semi-colons to separate multiple recipients) Rurudyne Your Reply: (HTML auto-detected, see help for more information) Oh goodie, ya wanna cookie? Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post): Spell Preview Post I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition. Word Wrap: ON Loose lips sink ships. In the Religion forum, on a thread titled Methodists elect 1st openly gay bishop in defiance of ban, Rurudyne wrote: “Handedly” is part of “high handedly” and it’s use is correct, referring to, in this case, the arrogant, arbitrary and unlawful assumption of the right to basically amend the Scriptures, altering what they say or mean. And I was not accusing you of arrogating the Scripture: rather that is in reference to those who do so, as in the case of “christians” who set aside the demand for repentance because some sin has become socially acceptable. Naturally this mean those who actively do so. Please don’t think I’m accusing you of stuff, certainly like we are talking about here. Still, in the case of sexual sins, it is not homosexuality alone we are told to flee, but simply sexual sin. That includes heterosexual adultery and fornication and not just outright perverted acts. Of course Christ said that lust itself was the real issue not to be played with and He equatied it to actual adultery. So I’m hardly surprised that when confronting a worldling about porn they often act just as upset as if I had just encouraged them to be a prude from now on (now, in these licentious times, deemed a negative in every respect). When someone thinks their illicit sexual escapades are what it means to pursue happiness they really don’t like God’s expectation that we be suitably chaste and pure people.

==========================================

Oh goodie, ya wanna cookie?

80 posted on 07/19/2016 10:18:16 AM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson