Quite an excellent piece of debating. Lovebug is out gunned my a mile.
Rules:
No whining
No debating.
No inappropriate tagging -they will be deleted.
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> Originally Posted by Lovebug
You call me an idiot
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Truth is truth.
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> Originally Posted by Lovebug
Why do you ask me that, when you want them dead?
</td></tr></tbody></table>
It's quite simple (except for idiots).
You say Paul wants them delivered over to be punished.
I say Paul wants them delivered over to be punished.
I told why I think they should be punished, and what mode of punishment the verse implies.
You say why they should be punished ....
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> so they would learn to not blaspheme </td></tr></tbody></table>
..... but have yet to tell what mode of punishment should happen to them.
So, just what mode of punishment is it that Satan uses to teach one not to blaspheme?
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> Originally Posted by Lovebug
Not me, not Wile, or anyone ELSE who knows the truth on this was EVER speaking of perfecting, through the law of moses! You are guilty of what you judged me for, when it is YOU and your ilk that wants to judge people by the flesh/law!
It has nothing to do with the law of moses, that is long gone.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
First, I never said Paul wanted them punished by the law of Moses. That's you being subtil.
Second, blasphemy was in the law of Moses.
If it's gone, then why is Paul suggesting a blasphemer should be punished?
See how you distort the bible?
Paul said nothing about them being handed over to Satan for blasphemy, but for fornication.
You always try to change the terms of scripture so as to distort it in order for it to fit your agenda.
Very subtil of you, but the faithful are not deceived by it.
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> Originally Posted by Lovebug
Quote:Where is that written? It is not even the way of the old covenant. Sin was sin; break one, guilty of all. (Old covenant)
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> Originally Posted by Tambora
For salvation, any sin condemns.
But for society to be orderly, some sins have a more severe penalty. Otherwise society would run amuck.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Your biblical illiteracy is showing again.
The law of the old covenant DID require that some be put to death for certain sins, but not others.
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> Originally Posted by Lovebug
The only penalty for the second death in the new covenant is UNBELIEF.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
And there you go again, foolish woman, inserting punishment of the "second death" into a conversation where it is not even being discussed.
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> Originally Posted by Lovebug
Who gave you the right to say one sin is more abhorable than another? Self righteouss hyopocrites!
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Since none were without sin, why does Paul not suggest they all be handed over to Satan instead of just those that were committing a gross fornication?
And why do YOU think those that have committed that particular sin should be kicked out, unless YOU also thought it was justifiable to do so (but not kicking out all sinners as well)?
Rules:
No whining
No debating.
No inappropriate tagging -they will be deleted.
Last edited by a moderator:
